Proving Dishonesty: The Standard of Evidence for Terminating a Security Guard

G.R. No. 124134, November 20, 1996 – DI Security and General Services, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Danilo T. Santos

Imagine a security guard entrusted with a firearm, a tool essential for maintaining safety and order. What happens when that firearm goes missing? The case of DI Security and General Services, Inc. vs. NLRC delves into this very scenario, highlighting the importance of substantial evidence when an employer terminates an employee for dishonesty. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes that employers must meet a specific evidentiary threshold to justify termination, protecting employees from arbitrary dismissal while acknowledging the employer’s right to maintain integrity within their workforce. This case serves as a crucial guide for employers, especially in the security industry, on how to properly handle cases of employee misconduct.

The Legal Landscape of Employee Termination

In the Philippines, the right to security of tenure is enshrined in the Constitution, meaning an employee cannot be terminated except for just or authorized causes and with due process. The Labor Code provides specific grounds for termination, including serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duty, fraud or willful breach of trust, and commission of a crime or offense against the employer or his family. Dishonesty falls under fraud or willful breach of trust, but proving it requires substantial evidence.

Article 297 of the Labor Code (formerly Article 282) outlines the grounds for termination by an employer:

“An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.”

Substantial evidence, as defined by the Supreme Court, means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” This standard is lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal cases, but higher than a mere scintilla of evidence. It requires credible and reliable evidence that points to the employee’s guilt.

For example, if a cashier is suspected of stealing money, the employer needs more than just a suspicion. They need to show discrepancies in the cash register, witness testimonies, or other concrete evidence linking the cashier to the theft.

The Case of the Missing Revolver

Danilo T. Santos, a security guard at DI Security and General Services, Inc., found himself in hot water when a .38 caliber revolver issued to him went missing. The timeline of events leading to his termination is crucial in understanding the Court’s decision:

• July 5, 1990: Santos was assigned to Filsyn Corporation and issued a revolver.
• July 6, 1990: Santos claimed he turned over the firearm to Sergeant-in-Charge (SIC) Arminio Dizon before taking a break.
• SIC Dizon denied receiving the firearm, and another security guard, Estrellita Lopez, testified she didn’t witness the turnover.
• July 12, 1990: Santos was summoned for investigation.
• August 1990: Santos was terminated for dishonesty.

Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing he had been wrongfully terminated. The Labor Arbiter initially sided with the security agency, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, ordering Santos’ reinstatement with backwages.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the NLRC. The Court emphasized that the NLRC had committed grave abuse of discretion by requiring a higher standard of proof than substantial evidence. The Court quoted the Labor Arbiter:

“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.”

The Court found that the security agency had presented sufficient evidence to establish that Santos had failed to return the firearm, justifying his termination. The Court also found merit in the testimony of SIC Dizon and LG Lopez, noting that their statements cast doubt on Santos’s claim of returning the firearm.

Lessons for Employers and Employees

This case provides valuable lessons for both employers and employees, particularly in industries where trust and accountability are paramount.

For employers, it underscores the importance of:

• Having clear and well-defined procedures for handling company property, especially firearms.
• Conducting thorough investigations when property is lost or missing.
• Gathering substantial evidence to support any disciplinary action, including termination.
• Ensuring that disciplinary actions are consistent with company policies and the law.

For employees, it highlights the need to:

• Adhere to company policies and procedures.
• Exercise due diligence in handling company property.
• Be truthful and cooperative during investigations.
• Seek legal advice if they believe they have been wrongfully terminated.

Key Lessons

• Substantial Evidence is Key: Terminations must be based on more than just suspicion.
• Clear Procedures Matter: Well-defined protocols for handling company property are essential.
• Honesty is Paramount: Employees must be truthful and accountable for their actions.

Consider a hypothetical scenario: A security guard is assigned a company vehicle. He parks it in a restricted area, and the vehicle is towed. The company investigates and finds evidence that the guard was aware of the parking restrictions. Based on this evidence, the company can likely terminate the guard for negligence or violation of company policy.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is considered “substantial evidence” in a labor case?

A: Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It’s more than a mere suspicion but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Q: Can an employer terminate an employee based on circumstantial evidence?

A: Yes, circumstantial evidence can be considered substantial evidence if it leads to a reasonable inference of guilt or misconduct.

Q: What should an employer do if company property goes missing?

A: The employer should conduct a thorough investigation, gather evidence, and provide the employee with an opportunity to explain the situation.

Q: What are the employee’s rights during an investigation?

A: The employee has the right to be informed of the charges against them, the right to present their side of the story, and the right to legal representation.

Q: What should an employee do if they believe they have been wrongfully terminated?

A: The employee should seek legal advice and file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) within a specified timeframe.

Q: How does this case apply to other industries besides security services?

A: The principles of substantial evidence and due process apply to all industries. Employers must have a valid and just cause for termination, supported by sufficient evidence.

ASG Law specializes in labor law and employment disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.