Not enough evidence of employee's pilferage
In the case of Grand Asian v. Galvez, G.R. No. 178184, January 29, 2014, the
Supreme Court reviewed the evidence on record and found that petitioners failed
to substantiate adequately the charges of pilferage against respondents who are
the former's terminated employees.
According to the High Court, the quantum of proof which the employer must
discharge is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is that amount of
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine
otherwise.[1]
According to the High Court, the quantum of proof which the employer must
discharge is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is that amount of
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine
otherwise.[1]
Back to the case of Grand Asian v. Galvez, it was held that the mere filing of
a formal charge does not automatically make the dismissal valid. Evidence
submitted to support the charge should be evaluated to see if the degree of
proof is met to justify termination of employment. An affidavit that simply
contains accusations that employees committed pilferage, which allegations
remain uncorroborated, is not enough. Unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations,
and conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for
dismissing employees.[2]
Other bits of evidence were also presented by the employer but they were found
inadequate to support the charge of pilferage.[3]
[1] AMA Computer College-East Rizal v. Ignacio, G. R. No. 178520, June
23, 2009, 590 SCRA 633, 652.
[2] Century Canning Corporation v. Ramil, G.R. No. 171630, August 9, 2010, 627
SCRA 192, 202.
[3] G.R. No. 178184, January 29, 2014.
