Employer implements "Code of Employee Discipline"

The evidence presented by petitioner to establish the loss of the firearm and that private respondent had not turned it over to the proper agency personnel at the end of his shift on the morning of July 6, 1990 constitutes relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion that private respondent had not in fact returned his service firearm after the same was issued to him on the night of July 5, 1990. This infraction constitutes dishonesty in accordance with their Code of Employee Discipline which calls for the corresponding penalty of dismissal. [G.R. No. 124134. November 20, 1996]