Mindset as Regards the Rules on Employee Dismissal for Just Cause

Dismissal of employee is one of the crucial decisions of an employer. The rules have been duly established. But the mentality required in handling the dismissal situation form the perspective of the employer should be clearly understood.

Where the fact of employee’s dismissal from service is undisputed by the parties, the crux of the issue therefore lies on whether the supposed transgressions of employee are supported by substantial evidence, and whether they are considered just causes for their dismissal.

In the case of JR Hauling Services vs. Solamo, (G.R. No. 214294, September 30, 2020), the Supreme Court held that it is a well-established rule that the party-litigant who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary to establish his/her claim has the burden of proving the same by the amount of evidence required by law, which, in labor proceedings, is substantial evidence, or “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”

In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable doubt is placed at the highest level, followed by clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence, and substantial evidence, in that order.

Thus, in the hierarchy of evidence, it is the least demanding. Corollarily, the ground for the dismissal of an employee does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The quantum of proof required is merely substantial evidence – which only entails evidence to support a conclusion, “even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.” Accordingly, requiring a quantum of proof that is over and above substantial evidence is contrary to law.

Citing the case of Manila Electric Company vs. National Labor Relations Commission, the SC held further that the ground for an employer’s dismissal of an employee need be established only by substantial evidence, it not being required that the former’s evidence be of such degree as is required in criminal cases, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It is absolutely of no consequence that the misconduct with which an employee may be charged also constitutes a criminal offense: theft, embezzlement, assault on another employee or company officer, arson, malicious mischief, etc.

The proceedings being administrative, the quantum of proof is governed by the substantial evidence rule and not, as the NLRC seems to imagine, by the rule governing judgments in criminal actions.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements