Overview

In the Philippines, an employee can be dismissed for mistakes or irregularities involving receipts — lost or tampered official receipts (ORs), unissued invoices, falsified reimbursement documents, unexplained cash shortages, etc. Whether that dismissal is fair (legal) or unfair (illegal) depends on two simultaneous tests:

Requirement	Substantive (the ground)	Procedural (the manner)
Statutory basis	Must fit any of the “just causes” in Article 297 [old 282] of the Labor Code (serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross & habitual neglect, fraud or loss-of-trust, or commission of a crime)	Must comply with Department Order 147-15, s. 2015: twin-notice rule, 5-day reply period, opportunity to be heard, and a written decision citeturn3search3
Burden of proof	Employer must show substantial evidence that the receipt-related act exists and is work-related; mere accusations or audit tallies are not enough (Art. 298)	Any shortcut (e.g., “informal chat” or “paperless” firing) makes the dismissal procedurally infirm even if the ground is valid

Failure in either test renders the dismissal unfair and exposes the employer to reinstatement, full back-wages, and damages.

1. What “receipt issues” commonly trigger dismissal

Scenario	Typical legal peg	Key doctrinal points
Falsified, altered or “fake” ORs / liquidation receipts	Fraud or loss-of-trust under Art. 297(c)	Requires clear showing of intentional falsification. In A.M. No. P-03-1708 a court employee was dismissed after fake receipts were matched with originals citeturn0search0
Failure to issue OR / invoice to a customer (BIR §§237–238)	Serious misconduct or willful disobedience of a lawful order (company/BIR)	Employer must prove that the failure was willful, not a single lapse. BIR may fine or jail the cashier, but the employer must still observe labor due-process before firing (RMC 77-2024) citeturn4search0
Unexplained cash shortages, lost receipts, or non-remittance	Loss-of-trust for fiduciary employees; gross & habitual neglect for others	In GR 114920 (Bank teller case, 1995) the Court upheld dismissal where audit proved repeated shortages citeturn0search1, but in GR 133259 (Cashier, 2000) occasional shortages without proof of misappropriation made termination illegal citeturn0search10
Failure to comply with e-invoicing / EOPT rules (2023-2025)	Usually willful disobedience of company policy	Must show the employee had clear instructions/training on the new system and still refused or sabotaged compliance (RR 6-2024, 11-2024) citeturn4search1turn4search9

2. Substantive test in detail

Match to a just cause.
Receipt misconduct almost always falls under either
a) Fraud or loss of trust and confidence – requires: (i) employee holds fiduciary or managerial position; (ii) the act is work-related; (iii) proof of participation. See GR 228449 (Aluag, 2017) citeturn10search9
b) Serious misconduct – misconduct must be grave, related to duties, and performed with wrongful intent (GR 202086, 2017) citeturn10search7
c) Gross and habitual neglect – repeated failure to look after company property or funds.
Standard of evidence.
Substantial evidence ≠ beyond reasonable doubt, but employers must present audits, CCTV, receipt exemplars, handwriting analysis, or at least affidavits of the buyer or auditor. Bare allegations (“cash drawer is short”) fail (GR 200815, 2020) citeturn10search3.
Fiduciary vs. rank-and-file threshold.
For cashiers, tellers, warehouse custodians, the Court is more lenient to employers (loss-of-trust may be based on “mere existence” of discrepancy if sufficiently documented). For ordinary staff, proof of deliberate wrongdoing is essential (GR 198066, 2017) citeturn10search0.

3. Procedural test (D.O. 147-15/Twin-Notice Rule)

Step	What must be done
1st Notice (NTE).	Serve written charge detailing the receipt incident, relevant policies, and give ≥ 5 calendar days for a written explanation.
Hearing/Conference.	Real opportunity to refute audit, present receipts, request cross-examination, or offer restitution/clarification.
2nd Notice (Decision).	State facts, law, company rule, and date of effectivity; deliver to employee’s last known address.
Report to DOLE.	Not mandatory for just-cause terminations, but best practice to file RKS-5 within 30 days.

Skipping any step converts an otherwise valid ground into illegal dismissal with partial back-wages (reduced to one-month under Jaka doctrine) but still exposes the employer to nominal damages (₱30k–₱50k).

4. Leading jurisprudence on receipt-related dismissals

Case	Gist	Ruling
Maturan v. Bank (GR 114920, Aug 10 1995)	Teller had ₱10k cash shortage + unreturned receipt stubs	Valid dismissal; shortages + fiduciary role establish loss-of-trust citeturn0search1
Legacy v. Dy Cashier (GR 133259, Feb 2000)	P1k shortage once; no proof of conversion	Illegal dismissal; mere arithmetic error not fraud citeturn0search10
People’s Bank v. Aluag (GR 228449, Dec 2017)	Manager falsified petrol receipts	Valid; falsification is serious misconduct & fraud citeturn10search9
Pacana v. Songco (GR 248108, Jul 2021)	Charges not specified; no hearing	Illegal; due-process violation even if shortage existed citeturn0search6
RMC 77-2024 (BIR)	Shift from OR to Invoice after 30 Jun 2024	Non-issuance penalized by fines/closure, but labor dismissal still needs Art 297 grounds citeturn4search0

5. Remedies for the employee

Single-Entry Approach (SEnA). Mandatory 30-day conciliation at DOLE Field Office.
NLRC Complaint. File within four (4) years from dismissal (Art. 306). Possible awards:
- Reinstatement or separation pay in lieu (one-month per year).
- Full back-wages (from dismissal to actual reinstatement/judgment).
- Moral & exemplary damages if bad-faith, plus 10 % attorney’s fees.
Execution. NLRC’s sheriff may garnish company accounts if employer refuses.

6. Employer risk-management checklist

✓ Document receipt-handling SOPs, cite BIR rules and company penalties.
✓ Train staff on new EOPT/e-invoicing obligations; secure sign-offs.
✓ Use segregation of duties and surprise audits to build evidence.
✓ Apply progressive discipline; suspension or demotion may suffice for first-time, non-fraud lapses (GR 133259).
✓ Always comply with D.O. 147-15 twin notices, even when caught in flagrante.
✓ Consider criminal action separately; a pending estafa case does not excuse labor due-process.

7. Practical tips for employees

Respond to the NTE in writing; attach receipts, CCTV grabs, or affidavit of customer.
If receipts were merely lost, offer restitution and explain preventive steps.
Keep copies/photos of every OR you issue; under the new E-invoice system most POS machines can auto-email your copy.
If dismissed, gather pay slips, contracts, memos, and audit reports before leaving the premises; they are crucial exhibits.

8. Intersection with tax and criminal law

Law	Offense	Possible impact on employment
NIRC §237–§238	Failure to issue OR/invoice, or use unregistered receipts (penalties amplified by RR 6-2024 & 11-2024) citeturn4search1turn4search9	Employer may insist on dismissal for cause, but must still meet Art 297 + D.O. 147-15 tests
Revised Penal Code Art 171	Falsification of private documents	Employer often relies on preliminary investigation records as evidence for fraud dismissal
RA 11900 (2023 EOPT Act)	Non-transmission of e-sales data	Creates regulatory fines; does not automatically justify dismissal unless employee culpability is proven

9. Consequences of unfair dismissal

Reinstatement is immediately executory once Labor Arbiter orders it; employer must accept or pay full salaries during appeal.
Back-wages: inclusive of allowances, 13th-month pay, and regular-time differentials.
Nominal damages: ₱30 000–₱50 000 for procedural lapses (Jaka, 2005).
Moral/exemplary damages: when dismissal was oppressive, humiliating, or retaliatory.
Contempt / payroll reinstatement: refusal to reinstate can lead to NLRC contempt and additional fines.

10. Key take-aways

Receipt irregularities can be a legitimate cause for termination but only when the act clearly falls under Article 297 and is supported by substantial evidence.
Due process is non-negotiable. Skipping the twin-notice + hearing will almost always convert a potentially valid dismissal into an unlawful one.
Both employers and employees should keep meticulous paper (or digital) trails of all receipts, audits, and communications — the party with documentary evidence usually wins before the NLRC.

This article is current as of 24 April 2025 (UTC+8) and summarizes Philippine statutes, regulations, and Supreme Court decisions. It is for information only and is not a substitute for individualized legal advice.