Theft by an Employee Constitutes Grave Misconduct Leading to Dismissal

A.M. No. 99-10-03-OCA, June 16, 2000

Imagine discovering that an employee you trusted has been stealing company supplies, not just once, but repeatedly. This betrayal not only impacts your bottom line but also shakes the foundation of trust within your organization. The Supreme Court case of Re: Pilferage of Supplies in the Stockroom of the Property Division, OCA Committed by Teodoro L. Saquin, Clerk II, highlights the severe consequences of employee theft and underscores the importance of maintaining integrity in public service. This case revolves around a court employee who was caught stealing office supplies, leading to his dismissal and potential criminal charges.

Understanding Grave Misconduct in Philippine Law

Grave misconduct, as a ground for dismissal, is defined under Philippine labor laws and jurisprudence. It generally involves the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not merely an error of judgment. The Revised Penal Code also defines theft, which is the unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another without their consent.

Article 217 of the Labor Code of the Philippines outlines the just causes for termination, including serious misconduct. Misconduct must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Theft, especially when committed by an employee against their employer, typically qualifies as grave misconduct due to the breach of trust involved.

In previous cases, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that employees who commit theft or other acts of dishonesty against their employers are subject to dismissal. For instance, in The Court Administrator v. William C. Sevillo, the Court held that stealing mail matter constitutes grave dishonesty and grave misconduct, justifying dismissal from service. These rulings emphasize that public servants, and all employees, must uphold the highest standards of integrity and honesty.

Consider this example: A cashier in a retail store is caught pocketing money from the cash register. This action constitutes theft and a breach of trust, making it a clear case of grave misconduct. Similarly, if an office worker steals company laptops and sells them for personal gain, this would also fall under the definition of grave misconduct.

The Case of Teodoro L. Saquin: A Detailed Breakdown

Teodoro L. Saquin, a Clerk II in the Supreme Court’s Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), found himself in hot water after being caught stealing office supplies. The timeline of events leading to his dismissal is as follows:

• January 17, 1999: Saquin was caught by security guards exiting the Supreme Court compound with a brown envelope containing office supplies (diskette and magic tape) without proper authorization.
• April 26, 1999: An investigation revealed further pilferage of office supplies at the Stockroom of the Property Division.
• April 28, 1999: Saquin admitted to stealing calculators and computer ribbons.
• May 5, 1999: Saquin executed an affidavit admitting to stealing office supplies and selling them to sidewalk vendors. He was preventively suspended on the same day.
• July 3, 1999: Saquin claimed his actions were driven by drug dependence.
• December 2, 1999: The Court Administrator found Saquin guilty of grave misconduct and recommended his dismissal.

During the investigation, Saquin admitted to stealing various items, including Canon calculators and OKI computer ribbons, which he sold for personal gain. He cited “personal needs and necessity” as his motivation and later attributed his actions to drug dependence. However, these justifications did not mitigate the severity of his offense in the eyes of the Court.

The Supreme Court quoted the Court Administrator, stating:

It is clear from the foregoing that Mr. Saquin was accorded his right to due process. The memorandum dated May 5, 1999 (and its attachments) clearly and distinctly set forth the charge against him. He submitted his explanation dated July 23, 1999 in which he admitted his fault and he even expressed the opinion that his acts merit the penalty of dismissal. The case is therefore ripe for evaluation, report and recommendation by this Office.

The Court emphasized the importance of integrity among court personnel, referencing a previous ruling:

It can never be said often enough that the conduct of judges and court personnel must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum at all times but must also be above suspicion…Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court adopted the Court Administrator’s findings and ordered Saquin’s dismissal.

Practical Implications for Employers and Employees

This case serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of employee theft and the importance of maintaining ethical conduct in the workplace. For employers, it underscores the need for robust internal controls, thorough background checks, and clear policies regarding employee conduct. For employees, it highlights the importance of upholding integrity and avoiding actions that could be construed as theft or misconduct.

Key Lessons

• Zero Tolerance for Theft: Employers should have a zero-tolerance policy for theft and other forms of dishonesty.
• Due Process: Ensure that employees are given due process during investigations, including the opportunity to explain their side of the story.
• Clear Policies: Implement clear policies and guidelines regarding employee conduct and the handling of company property.
• Background Checks: Conduct thorough background checks on potential employees to assess their integrity and trustworthiness.
• Internal Controls: Establish strong internal controls to prevent and detect theft or other forms of misconduct.

Imagine a small business owner who discovers that their trusted bookkeeper has been embezzling funds for years. This not only causes financial damage but also creates a sense of betrayal and distrust within the company. By implementing strong internal controls and conducting regular audits, the business owner could have prevented this situation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What constitutes grave misconduct in the context of employment?

A: Grave misconduct involves a serious transgression of established rules, indicating a wrongful intent and not merely an error in judgment. It is a just cause for termination under the Labor Code.

Q: Can an employee be dismissed for theft, even if the value of the stolen items is small?

A: Yes, theft, regardless of the value of the stolen items, can be grounds for dismissal, especially when it involves a breach of trust between the employer and employee.

Q: What is due process in the context of employee discipline?

A: Due process requires that employees are informed of the charges against them and given an opportunity to explain their side of the story before any disciplinary action is taken.

Q: What are the potential consequences of being dismissed for grave misconduct?

A: An employee dismissed for grave misconduct may face forfeiture of benefits, difficulty finding future employment, and potential criminal charges, depending on the nature and severity of the misconduct.

Q: How can employers prevent employee theft?

A: Employers can prevent employee theft by implementing strong internal controls, conducting thorough background checks, establishing clear policies, and fostering a culture of integrity and ethical conduct.

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

A: If an employer suspects an employee of theft, they should conduct a thorough investigation, gather evidence, and provide the employee with an opportunity to respond to the allegations before taking any disciplinary action.

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