Short answer. Possibly, but only if it is analogous to one of the listed causes. Article 282 closes with other causes analogous to the foregoing, which lets an unlisted reason serve as a just cause where it genuinely resembles a named one. A reason resembling none of them is not enough.
What the law says
Other causes analogous to the foregoing
Labor Code, Article 282 — Just Causes For Dismissal. Read the full provision →
The list is not quite closed, but it is anchored
Four causes are named — serious misconduct or wilful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect, fraud or wilful breach of trust, and a crime against the employer or those close to him — and then the article admits other causes analogous to the foregoing. The last phrase is what allows an unlisted reason to be used at all. But it is an extension of the list, not an escape from it. The unlisted reason has to resemble one of the four in kind, which means the employer must be able to say which named cause it is analogous to, and why.
What analogous actually demands
Look at what the four named causes have in common. Each describes conduct on the employee's part, and each is qualified in a way that points to fault: misconduct must be serious, disobedience and breach of trust must be wilful, neglect must be gross and habitual. So a reason is not analogous merely because the employer finds it inconvenient or costly. Circumstances that involve no fault of yours at all — an illness, a downturn in the business, a restructuring, a personality clash with a manager — do not resemble any of the four, however genuine the employer's difficulty.
A company rule is not itself a just cause
Employers frequently answer this question by pointing to their handbook, as though listing an offence there settles the matter. It does not. Article 282 is the source of the authority to dismiss for just cause, and a house rule cannot add a fifth item to it. What a written rule can do is supply the lawful order whose wilful disobedience the article already covers, or show that conduct was understood by everyone to be serious. Ask, then, which of the four causes your employer says the rule breach is analogous to — a question that is often left unanswered.
Pin the ground down in writing
Because the analysis depends entirely on which named cause is being invoked, the single most useful step is to get your employer to state it. Keep the notice you were served and note whether it identifies a cause under Article 282 at all, or only quotes a company rule. Keep the handbook or memo relied on, and any record of how the same conduct was treated in other people's cases, since inconsistent treatment tells against the claim that the conduct was serious. Those documents are what a lawyer will read first.