CONCEPCION v.

MINEX IMPORT CORPORATION

January 24, 2014 | Benjamin, J. | Certiorari | Criminal Charges
PETITIONER: Lolita S. Concepcion
RESPONDENTS: Minex Import Corporation/Minerama Corporation, Kenneth Meyers, Sylvia P. Mariano, and Vina
Mariano
SUMMARY: Concepcion was a salesgirl/supervisor of minex who was charged with qualified theft. City Prosecutor found
probable cause. However, NLRC held she was illegally dismissed. THe courd held that finding after the preliminary
investigation of their prima facie guilt of the offense charged constitute substantial evidence sufficient to warrant a finding
of a just cause for their termination based on loss of trust and confidence
DOCTRINE: The acquittal of the employee from the criminal prosecution for a crime committed against the interest of the
employer did not automaticalls eliminate loss of confidence as a basis for administrative action against the employee.
FACTS:
1. Concepcion was hired by Minex initially as a salesgirl
for their retail business of selling semi-precious stones.
She was promoted as a supervisor with two salesgirls
working under her supervision. She also has the duty to
hold the key of the kiosk.
2. On November 9, 1997 they had a cash count of P50,912
for their aggregate sale for 3 days. Concepcion wrapped
it in plastic bag and deposited it in the drawer of the
locked wooden cabinet of the kiosk. Next morning they
discovered that the kiosk was in disarray and the money
was already missing. Concepcion immediately reported
this to her superiors, who immediately arrived with
policemen and placed her under arrest. She was detained
for a day and was released only because the inquest
prosecutor instructed so.
3. Concepcion insisted her innocence and claimed that she
allegedly left ahead the other two salesgirls. Her
superiors however declared that Concepcion violated a
Standard Operating Procedure requiring cas proceeds
exceeding P10,000 to be reported for pick-up if the
amount could not be deposited in the bank.
4. Concepcion filed illegal dismissal, while Minex filed a
Complaint for qualified theft.
5. THe prosecutor found probable cause for qualified theft
and recommended the filing of an information against
Concepcion. Concepcion appealed by petition to the DOJ
but it was denied.
6. As to Illegal Dismissal, Labor Arbiter found that she was
illegally dismissed and ordered reinstatement.
7. However, NLRC and CA reversed LA by declaring that
she was not illegally dismissed rather she abandoned her
job and her dismissal would be justifiable for loss of
confidence in the light of the finding of probable cause
by the DOJ and the City Prosecutor.
ISSUE:WoN the petitioners were illegally dismissedNo

to anchor a factual basis for the illegal dismissal for the

petitioner for the loss of confidence.
2. Petitioner still argues that Minex cannot validly dismiss her
since she had not beet yet found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. The court answered that :neither conviction beyond
reasonable doubt for a crime against the employer nor
acquittal after criminal prosecution was indispensable. Nor
was a formal charge in court for the acts prejudicial to the
interest of the employer a pre-requiste for valid dismissal.
3. NLU v Standard Vacuum Oil Company: The conviction of
an employee in a criminal case is not indispensable to warrant
his dismissal by his employer. If there is sufficient evidence to
show that the employee has ample reason to distrust him, it
cannot justly deny to the employer the authority to dismiss
him. It is not necessary for said court to find that an employee
has been guilty of a crime beyond reasonable doubt.
4. PLDT v. NLRC: acquittal of the employee from the
criminal prosecution for a crime committed against the interest
of the employer did not automatically eliminate loss of
confidence as a basis for administrative action against the
employee.
5. Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. NLRC: It is not
necessary that the employer should await the employees final
conviction in the criminal case involving such fraud or breach
of trust before it can terminate the employees services. In
fact, even the dropping of the charges or an acquittal of the
employee therefrom does not preclude the dismissal of an
employee for acts inimical to the interests of the employer. To
our mund finding after the preliminary investigation of their
prima facie guilt of the offense charged constitute substantial
evidence sufficient to warrant a finding of a just cause for their
termination based on loss of trust and confidence.

RULING: Petition DENIED

RATIO:
1.

CA stated as it affirms NLRC: If circumstantial evidence

is sufficient on which to anchor a judgment of conviction
in criminal cases under Section 4, Rule 133 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence, there is no cogent reason
why circumstantial evidence is not sufficient on to which

6. The quantum of evidence required for convicting an

accused (proof of guilty beyond reasonable doubt) is higher
than the quantum of evidence prescribed for dismissing an
employee (substantial evidence). ALSO, the consequence is
lesser than the loss of personal liberty and may thus call for a
lower degree of proof.

7. Nonetheless, the court held that even there was just proof
and it was a valid dismissal, the company failed to provide

procedural due process for Concepcion.