Fraud is never presumed. It must be proved. It cannot be based on nebulous facts.

Fraud and misrepresentation are, therefore, never presumed; it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence and not mere preponderance of evidence. (Solidbank Corporation v. Mindanao Ferroalloy Corporation, G.R. No. 153535, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 409, 426; Republic of the Philippines v. Institute for Social Concern, G.R. No. 156306, January 28, 2005, 449 SCRA 512, 521-522; Spouses Morandarte v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123586, August 12, 2004, 436 SCRA 213, 223; and Maestrado v. Court of Appeals, 384 Phil. 418, 435 (2000).)

Hence, the Supreme Court does not sustain findings of fraud upon circumstances which, at most, create only suspicion; otherwise, it would be indulging in speculations and surmises.

In a case where the employee questions her dis- missal due to the fact that the company failed to prove damage or losses on its part, the Supreme Court held that:

“The fact that private respondent did not suffer losses from the dishonesty of the petitioner because of their timely discovery does not excuse the latter from any culpability. Indeed, the law, in protecting the rights of workers, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. In this regard, a company has the right to dismiss its employees as a measure of self-protection.” (Rolia Villanueva vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 129413 July 27, 1998.)

Further, the fact that the employer failed to show it suffered losses in revenue as a consequence of em- ployee’s questioned act is immaterial. The fact that the employee attempted to deprive petitioner of its lawful revenue is tantamount to fraud against the company, which warrants dismissal from the service.

Actual loss against the company is not necessary to establish fraud as an offense. It must be stressed that actual defraudation is not necessary in order that an employee may be held liable under the aforequoted rule. That employee attempted to deprive employer of its lawful revenue is already tantamount to fraud against the company, which warrants dismissal from the service.

Even if it is to be argued that the employer suffered no damage since the employee has settled his account, the rule is clear that it is betrayal of trust and confidence that is the reason for termination. The fact that there was ultimately no monetary damage is of no moment.

Restitution of property taken by the errant employee does not erase the offense committed.

Hence, even if the shortages have been fully restituted, the fact that the employee has misappropriated company funds is a valid ground to terminate his services for loss of trust and confidence.

In another case, misappropriation of company funds, although the shortages had been fully restituted, is a valid ground to terminate the services of an employee of the company for loss of trust and confidence.

In the final analysis, an employer cannot be compelled to retain in his service an employee who is guilty of acts inimical to its interest. A company has the right to dismiss its employees as a measure of protection.

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