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]

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.