Introduction

Employing a househelper (kasambahay) means letting someone into the most private part of your life—your home. When valuables go missing, suspicion can arise quickly. But suspicion is not the same as proof. In the Philippines, househelpers are protected by specific labor rules, and ending their employment carries legal requirements. This article explains when and how a kasambahay may be terminated for suspected theft, what “evidence” is needed, what due process looks like in a household setting, and what risks employers face if they dismiss without sufficient basis.

The Legal Framework: Kasambahay Are Not “Informal”

Househelpers are covered by Republic Act No. 10361 or the “Batas Kasambahay.” This law sets minimum wages, benefits, and—crucially—rules on termination. Where RA 10361 is silent, general labor principles under the Labor Code are typically applied by analogy.

Key point: Kasambahay employment is still employment. Even though the workplace is a home, termination must comply with law.

Termination by the Employer: What Are Valid Grounds?

RA 10361 allows employers to terminate a kasambahay only for just causes or authorized causes.

A. Just Causes (Fault-Based)

These mirror Labor Code standards. Common examples include:

Serious misconduct
Willful disobedience of lawful orders
Gross or habitual neglect of duties
Fraud or willful breach of trust
Commission of a crime or offense against the employer, employer’s family, or household members
Other analogous causes

Theft, if proven, fits under:

Commission of a crime/offense, and/or
Fraud / breach of trust.

B. Authorized Causes (Not Fault-Based)

These are reasons not arising from wrongdoing, such as:

Household employer’s financial hardship
Change in household circumstances
Kasambahay’s illness that makes continued employment unsafe or impractical
Other causes recognized in law or contract

Authorized causes generally require advance notice and appropriate final pay, and in some situations, additional compensation.

Is Mere Suspicion of Theft a “Just Cause”?

Short answer: Suspicion alone is not enough.

In labor disputes, employers must show substantial evidence—meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as enough to support a conclusion. It is lower than “proof beyond reasonable doubt” in criminal cases but still requires facts, not guesses.

So:

“I think she stole it” → not a legal basis.
“We found the missing item in his bag; he gave inconsistent explanations; there are witnesses/cameras” → potentially a legal basis.

Even for kasambahay, the rule remains: Dismissal must be based on a supported cause, not on anxiety or speculation.

Evidence: What Counts as “Substantial” in a Household Case?

Evidence can be direct or circumstantial, like:

Stronger forms of evidence

The missing item found in the helper’s possession or room
Admissions (written or witnessed)
Witness accounts from household members or neighbors
CCTV or phone video
Pattern evidence (repeated losses tied to specific access, supported by logs/messages)
Police blotter filed promptly and consistently describing facts

Weaker evidence (usually insufficient alone)

Rumors from others
“It only happens when they’re around”
Vague hunches without supporting facts
Past suspicion without documentation
Coerced or unclear “confessions”

Important: If the case reaches DOLE/NLRC or conciliation, the employer carries the burden to justify termination.

Due Process: What Must Employers Do Before Termination?

Even in a home setting, procedural due process is required for just-cause termination.

A practical, legally safe process looks like this:

First Written Notice (Notice to Explain)
- State the specific act complained of (date, item missing, circumstances).
- Ask for the kasambahay’s written explanation within a reasonable time.
Chance to Be Heard
- A simple household conference is enough.
- Let the kasambahay explain, clarify, or rebut.
Second Written Notice (Notice of Decision)
- If evidence supports guilt, issue written termination citing the just cause.
- If evidence is weak, do not cite theft as a ground.
Final Pay and Documents Give all amounts due immediately upon separation, including:
- Unpaid wages
- Pro-rated 13th month pay
- Other benefits agreed upon
- Certificate of employment (if requested)
If Termination Is Without Just Cause RA 10361 provides that the employer may owe compensation equivalent to 15 days’ wage or the unexpired portion of the contract, whichever is longer.

What If You’re Not Sure, But You No Longer Feel Safe?

This is the real-world dilemma. You may not be able to prove theft, but trust is broken.

Here are lawful options:

Option 1: Do Not Terminate for Theft—Use an Authorized Cause

If there is no substantial evidence, avoid accusing theft. Instead, end employment based on:

Change in household needs,
Financial constraints, or
End of contract / mutual agreement.

This reduces risk of illegal dismissal because you are not claiming fault you can’t prove.

Option 2: Mutual Separation Agreement

If both sides agree, put it in writing:

Last day of work
Settlement of pay
Return of property
A statement that separation is voluntary

Avoid pressuring; coercion can invalidate the agreement.

Option 3: Temporary Removal During Investigation

If you believe there’s immediate risk:

You can ask the helper to take leave or stay out of the home temporarily while you investigate.
Keep it short and documented.
Because kasambahay work is intimate and home-based, tribunals often accept a short “cooling-off” period if handled humanely.

Risks of Terminating Without Evidence

1. Illegal Dismissal Claims

A kasambahay may file a complaint with:

Barangay (often the first venue),
DOLE field office, or
NLRC in certain situations.

If dismissal is ruled illegal, you may be ordered to pay:

Compensation under RA 10361 (15 days/unexpired portion rule),
Unpaid benefits, and
Possible damages depending on the circumstances.

2. Defamation / Unjust Accusation

Publicly accusing a helper of theft without proof—especially to neighbors, relatives, or online—can expose the employer to:

Civil liability, and in extreme cases,
Criminal complaints for slander or libel.

3. Criminal Exposure If You Use Force or Humiliation

Actions like:

Forcibly searching body or intimate areas,
Detaining the helper,
Violence or threats,
Shaming or posting their photos with accusations

may lead to criminal charges against the employer.

Practical Guidance: How to Handle Suspected Theft Safely

Document incidents immediately List missing items, dates, access circumstances.
Limit access and check systems Secure valuables, consider cameras in common areas only.
Investigate quietly and fairly Ask neutral questions. Avoid leading accusations.
Respect dignity and privacy You may inspect workplace areas (common spaces) reasonably. Searches of personal belongings should be with consent and witnesses.
If evidence emerges, proceed with due process Notices, hearing, decision.
If evidence does not emerge, separate without blaming theft Use authorized cause or mutual agreement.

Frequently Asked Questions

“Can I fire my kasambahay immediately if I strongly suspect theft?”

You can end employment, but not legally for theft without evidence. If you dismiss stating theft as the cause and cannot prove it, you risk illegal dismissal. Use safer grounds if proof is lacking.

“What if the helper confesses orally?”

Oral confession helps but is stronger if:

Made voluntarily,
In the presence of witnesses, and
Written and signed. Coerced confessions are unreliable and risky.

“Is ‘loss of trust’ enough?”

Loss of trust must be based on facts showing breach of trust, not a vibe. Employers must point to concrete circumstances supporting the loss.

“Do I need a lawyer or go to court first?”

Not required. Termination is an employer action. But if you plan to cite theft, you should be sure your evidence would meet the substantial evidence standard.

“Should I file a police case?”

Only if you have credible evidence. Filing a criminal complaint without basis can backfire. Labor termination and criminal prosecution are separate; labor cases need only substantial evidence, criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

You cannot lawfully terminate a kasambahay for theft on mere suspicion. RA 10361 and labor principles require a just cause supported by substantial evidence, plus basic due process. If proof is weak but trust is gone, employers still have legal exits—authorized causes, end-of-contract separation, or mutual agreements—without branding the helper a thief.

Handled correctly, you protect your home and avoid turning a painful situation into a legal one.