Criminal conviction NOT necessary for employment termination
In Nicolas v. National Labor Relations Commission,[1] the Supreme Court
held in Lynvil Fishing Enterprises, Inc. v. Arriola, et al.,[2] that a
criminal conviction is not necessary to find just cause for employment
termination. Otherwise stated, an employee's acquittal in a criminal case, especially one
that is grounded on the existence of reasonable doubt, will not preclude a
determination in a labor case that he is guilty of acts inimical to the
employer's interests.[3] In the reverse, the finding of probable cause is
not followed by automatic adoption of such finding by the labor
tribunals.[4] In other words, whichever way the public prosecutor disposes
of a complaint, the finding does not bind the labor tribunal.[5]
In
the case of Copy Central Digital Copy Solution v. Domrique and Leaño,[6]
petitioners cannot argue that, since the Assistant City Prosecutor found
probable cause for qualified theft and subsequently filed criminal information
against respondents, the LA must follow the finding as a valid reason for their
termination from employment. The proof required for purposes that differ from
one and the other are likewise different.
Hence, aside from the allegation of theft which was not substantiated, absent any other ground for petitioners to lose trust and confidence in respondents, the Supreme Court agreed with the LA and the CA that respondents' termination from employment is illegal.
In
the case of Copy Central Digital Copy Solution v. Domrique and Leaño,[6]
petitioners cannot argue that, since the Assistant City Prosecutor found
probable cause for qualified theft and subsequently filed criminal information
against respondents, the LA must follow the finding as a valid reason for their
termination from employment. The proof required for purposes that differ from
one and the other are likewise different.Hence, aside from the allegation of theft which was not substantiated, absent any other ground for petitioners to lose trust and confidence in respondents, the Supreme Court agreed with the LA and the CA that respondents' termination from employment is illegal.
[1] 327 Phil. 883, 886-887 (1996).
[2] 680 Phil. 696 (2012).
[3] Lynvil Fishing Enterprises, Inc. v. Arriola, et al., supra, at 709-710.
[4] Id. at 710.
[5] Id.
[6] G.R. No. 193219, July 27, 2015.