Employee Theft and the Importance of Due Process in Termination

Can an employer dismiss an employee based on theft allegations? Yes, but proving the theft isn’t enough. Employers must also follow due process, even if the employee confesses. Failure to do so can result in penalties, even if the dismissal itself is deemed valid. This case underscores the critical balance between an employer’s right to protect their assets and an employee’s right to fair treatment under the law.

G.R. No. 127553, November 28, 1997

Introduction

Imagine your business is suffering losses due to internal theft. You identify the culprits, they even admit their guilt, and you immediately terminate them. Seems justified, right? However, in the Philippines, even with a valid reason for dismissal, failing to follow proper procedure can expose you to legal repercussions. The case of Eddie Manuel, Romeo Bana, Rogelio Pagtama, Jr. and Joel Rea vs. N.C. Construction Supply, Johnny Lim, Anita Sy and National Labor Relations Commission illustrates this crucial point.

This case revolves around four employees of N.C. Construction Supply who were terminated after being implicated in a series of thefts. While the company had evidence suggesting their involvement, the Supreme Court ultimately focused on whether the company followed the correct procedure in dismissing them, highlighting the importance of due process in employment termination cases.

Legal Context: Just Cause vs. Due Process

Philippine labor law distinguishes between ‘just cause’ and ‘due process’ in termination cases. An employer must have a valid reason to dismiss an employee (just cause), but they must also follow a specific procedure to ensure fairness (due process). Failure to comply with either requirement can lead to legal challenges.

Article 282 of the Labor Code outlines the just causes for termination, including:

• Serious misconduct
• Gross neglect of duty
• Fraud or willful breach of trust
• Commission of a crime against the employer
• Other similar causes

In cases involving theft, employers often rely on ‘loss of trust and confidence’ as the just cause. However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this loss of trust must be based on specific incidents and supported by substantial evidence. It cannot be a mere suspicion or hunch.

Furthermore, procedural due process requires employers to follow a two-notice rule, as stipulated in numerous Supreme Court decisions. This involves serving the employee with:

1. A written notice stating the specific grounds for termination.
2. A second written notice informing the employee of the decision to terminate them after they have been given an opportunity to be heard.

As the Supreme Court emphasized in Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services (Phils.), Inc. v. NLRC, “Due process demands that the employer should furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the cause(s) for termination and afford him ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance of a representative if he so desires.”

Case Breakdown: Theft, Confession, and a Procedural Misstep

The story began when a driver and his helper were caught stealing electrical wire from N.C. Construction Supply. The helper, Jay Calso, implicated Eddie Manuel, Romeo Bana, Rogelio Pagtama, Jr., and Joel Rea in a series of thefts.

The company notified the four employees about the accusations and invited them to the police station for investigation. During questioning by the company’s lawyer, the employees initially denied the charges but eventually admitted their guilt after being confronted by Jay Calso. They offered to resign in exchange for the company dropping any criminal charges. Two employees submitted written resignations, while the other two resigned orally. The company accepted their resignations effective immediately.

However, the employees later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that they were not informed of the charges against them, nor were they given a real opportunity to defend themselves. They claimed their confessions and resignations were coerced through threats and intimidation.

The case went through the following stages:

• Labor Arbiter: Ruled in favor of the employees, finding the dismissal illegal due to lack of just cause and due process. The arbiter deemed the confessions inadmissible because they were obtained without the presence of counsel.
• National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): Reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding that there was just cause for dismissal based on the employees’ admissions. However, the NLRC agreed that the company failed to observe due process and awarded each employee P1,000 as indemnity.
• Supreme Court: Affirmed the NLRC’s decision. The Court agreed that the employees’ admissions were admissible because they were made during an administrative investigation, not a custodial investigation. However, the Court upheld the NLRC’s finding that the company failed to follow the two-notice rule, thus warranting the indemnity payment.

The Supreme Court stated, “The right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case under custodial investigation… Therefore, the exclusionary rule under paragraph (3) Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation.”

Practical Implications: Balancing Justice and Procedure

This case serves as a reminder that employers must adhere to procedural due process, even when dealing with employees suspected of serious misconduct. Simply having a valid reason for dismissal is not enough. Failing to follow the correct procedure can expose the company to liability, even if the dismissal itself is ultimately upheld.

Here are some key lessons for employers:

• Conduct a Thorough Investigation: Gather sufficient evidence to support any allegations of misconduct.
• Follow the Two-Notice Rule: Serve the employee with a written notice of the charges and provide an opportunity to respond before issuing a notice of termination.
• Document Everything: Keep detailed records of all investigations, notices, and responses.
• Seek Legal Advice: Consult with a labor lawyer to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What constitutes “just cause” for termination in the Philippines?

A: Article 282 of the Labor Code lists several just causes, including serious misconduct, gross neglect of duty, fraud, and commission of a crime. The specific facts of each case will determine whether just cause exists.

Q: What is the “two-notice rule”?

A: The two-notice rule requires employers to provide two written notices to an employee before termination: one informing them of the charges and another informing them of the decision to terminate.

Q: What happens if an employer fails to follow due process?

A: Even if the dismissal is for just cause, failure to follow due process can result in the employer being ordered to pay indemnity to the employee.

Q: Can an employee’s confession be used as evidence in a termination case?

A: Yes, admissions made during an administrative investigation (conducted by the employer) can be used as evidence, unlike confessions obtained during a custodial investigation (by law enforcement) without the presence of counsel.

Q: What should I do if I suspect an employee of theft?

A: Conduct a thorough investigation, gather evidence, and consult with a labor lawyer before taking any action. It’s crucial to follow the correct procedure to avoid legal challenges.

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