An employee was held to be validly dismissed for the loss and unauthorized sale of the company’s electric copper wire cable upon findings that he sold the same and shared the proceeds with his three co-employees. (See Asian Terminals, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Nepthally B. Sallao, G.R. No. 166211, July 14, 2008.)

Whenever an employee steals something from the company, the employer may institute at least two actions: An administrative case threatening dismissal from service and a criminal case.

If that is the course taken by the employer, an interesting question is whether conviction of an employee in a criminal case is required for the dismissal of the employee from service on the ground of theft.

The ruling in this case is no. As discussed, the proof required in administrative proceeding is different from that of the criminal one. The former requires only substantial evidence while the latter proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the administrative case is independent of the criminal action. The erring employee may be acquitted but likewise dismissed due to substantial evidence proving the offense.

Hence, in the case where the city prosecutor dis- missed the complaint for theft due to insufficiency of evidence, the employee cannot claim that there was no valid cause for her termination on the ground of theft because there was no probable cause. The conclusion that there was a valid ground for dismissal was supported by substantial evidence consisting of affidavits of NBI’s witnesses and the company’s own investigative findings.

The employee’s acquittal in a criminal case, especially one that is grounded on the existence of reasonable doubt, will not preclude a determination in a labor case that he is guilty of acts inimical to the employer’s interests.

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

The Revised Penal Code generally defines theft as an act committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent .

An employee was held to be validly dismissed for the loss and unauthorized sale of the company’s electric copper wire cable upon findings that he sold the same and shared the proceeds with his three co-employees .

Whenever an employee steals something from the company, the employer may institute at least two actions: An administrative case threatening dismissal from service and a criminal case.

If that is the course taken by the employer, an interesting question is whether conviction of an employee in a criminal case is required for the dismissal of the employee from service on the ground of theft.

The ruling in this case is no. As discussed, the proof required in administrative proceeding is different from that of the criminal one. The former requires only substantial evidence while the latter proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the administrative case is independent of the criminal action. The erring employee may be acquitted but likewise dismissed due to substantial evidence proving the offense.

Hence, in the case where the city prosecutor dismissed the complaint for theft due to insufficiency of evidence, the employee cannot claim that there was no valid cause for her termination on the ground of theft because there was no probable cause.

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

The conclusion that there was a valid ground for dismissal was supported by substantial evidence consisting of affidavits of NBI’s witnesses and the company’s own investigative findings.