DISHONESTY/FRAUD

Here, defendants failed to substantiate adequately the charges of pilferage against

[complainants]. [T]he quantum of proof which the employer must discharge is substantial
evidence [which] 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. Consequently, 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 respondents termination. The
affidavit executed by Montegrico simply contained the accusations of Abis that
[complainants] committed pilferage, which allegations remain uncorroborated. Thus,
[u]nsubstantiated suspicious, accusations, and conclusions of employers do not
provide for legal justification for dismissing employees.
Further, the other pieces of evidence were also inadequate to support the charge of
pilferage. The findings made by GASLIs port captain and internal auditor and the resulting
certification executed by De la Rama merely showed an overstatement of fuel consumption
as revealed in the Engineers Voyage Reports. The report of Jade Sea Land Inspection
Services only declares the actual usage and amount of fuel consumed for a particular
voyage. There are no other sufficient evidence to show that respondents participated
in the commission of a serious misconduct or an offense against their
employer.(Grand Asian Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Wilfredo Galvez, G.R. No. 178184, 29
January 2014)

G.R. No. 82467 June 29, 1989

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PEDRO B. DELEN, FELIPE P. MERCADO,
ROGELIO Z. MISOLAS, HENRY S. LOGAN & EFREN M. QUERUBIN, respondents.

The NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ordering the reinstatement of the
private respondents to their positions with backwages. Its decision was an
unjustified departure from the rule that:

An employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with

the employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of
misfeasance or malfeasance towards his employer, and whose
continuance in the service of the latter is patently inimical to his
interests. The law, in protecting the rights of the laborer,
authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the
employer. (Manila Trading & Supply Co. vs. The Hon.
Francisco Zulueta, et al., 69 Phil. 485, cited in San Miguel
Brewery, Inc. vs. National Labor Union et al., 97 Phil. 387.)