An employer has a right to terminate the services of an employee subject to both substantive and procedural limitations. The validity of the dismissal hinges on the employer's compliance with these two requirements. In the case at bar, petitioners who were employed as drivers at respondent company were found guilty of stealing company property consisting of electrical wire, welding rod, G.I. sheet, steel bar and plywood. Article 282 of the Labor Code authorizes an employer to terminate the services of an employee for loss of trust and confidence, provided that the loss of confidence arises from particular proven facts. The law does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee's misconduct.
Substantial evidence is sufficient.
Jay Calso, an employee of respondent company who has personal knowledge about the series of thefts that has been going on at respondent company, positively identified petitioners as among the perpetrators of the theft. Petitioners have not shown any ill motive on the part of Calso to implicate them in the offense, unless it was true. In addition, petitioners admitted their participation in the theft during an investigation conducted by private respondents' lawyer. We are not convinced by petitioners' allegation that such admission was obtained by means of threat or intimidation as such allegation is couched in general terms and is unsupported by evidence. We also reject petitioners' argument that said admission is inadmissible as evidence against them under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.