What is the quantum of evidence to prove just, valid ground to terminate employee?

Loss of a service firearm by a security guard cannot be taken lightly. Such loss, for which private respondent was ultimately responsible, remained undisputed and there is nothing on record which may impute any motive upon petitioner to harass private respondent for such loss. Public respondent NLRC gravely abuse its discretion when it chose to close its eyes to this reality and instead merely relied on what is not implausible or what is not impossible. Sadly, respondent commission applied a different gauge or quantum of evidence for petitioner to establish the valid and just cause for private respondents dismissal. Public respondent was in effect requiring petitioner to adduce proof beyond reasonable doubt of private respondents failure to turn-over his service firearm. It implied that since there was a possibility that private respondent could have returned the subject firearm, there was room to doubt the conclusiveness of petitioners evidence. This is erroneous because this is not the quantum of evidence required by law. [G.R. No. 124134. November 20, 1996]