Concepcion v Minex Import Corporation
January 24, 2012 | Bersamin, J.
Petitioner: Lolita S. Concepcion
Respondents: Minex Import Corporation/Minerama Corp., Kenneth Meyers, Sylvia
Mariano, 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 court held that a finding 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 does not automatically eliminate
loss of confidence as a basis for administrative action against the employee
FACTS
 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
 On Nov. 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
 Concepcion insisted on her innocence and claimed that she allegedly left
ahead of the two other salesgirls. Her superiors however declared that
Concepcion violated a Standard Operating Procedure requiring cash proceeds
exceeding 10K to be reported for pick-up if the amount could not be
deposited in the bank
 Concepcion filed for illegal dismissal, while Minex filed a complaint for
qualified theft
 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
 As to Illegal Dismissal, the Labor Arbiter found that she was illegally dismissed
and ordered her reinstatement
 However, NLRC and CA reversed LA, 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 dismissed – NO
RATIO –
 CA stated as it affirms NLRC – If circumstantial evidence is sufficient on w/c to
anchor a judgment of conviction in criminal cases under Sec. 4, Rule 133 of
the Revised Rules on Evidence, there is no cogent reason why circumstantial
evidence is not sufficient on to which to anchor a factual basis for illegal
dismissal for the petitioner for loss of confidence
 Petitioner still argues that Minex cannot validly dismiss her since she had not
been 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
prerequisite for valid dismissal
 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 employer 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
 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 has a basis for administrative action against the
employee
 Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v NLRC – it is not necessary that the
employer should await the employee’s final conviction in the criminal case
involving such fraud or breach of trust before it can terminate the employee’s
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. A finding of 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
 The quantum of evidence required for convicting an accused (proof of guilt
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

DISPOSITIVE
Petition Denied