When an employee appropriates for himself what belongs to his employer, the crime is qualified theft—the qualification arising from the relationship of trust that is itself a consequence of the employment relationship. The law allows for no qualifiers—“unless the accused is truly hungry,” “unless he is not paid just wages,” “unless he has tried his best to beg but has been refused.” It is the rigidity of the law that allows for the stabilization of behavioral expectations. I do not expect my possessions, as a matter of course, to be spirited away by others. Employers expect their employees to keep their hands off their shelves, unless it is to do work! If the law were so malleable as to be rendered inapplicable whenever a consideration of mercy, benevolence, charity or human-heartedness became relevant, then it would be unable to do what a law should do: Allow persons to order and direct their lives according to protected expectations. I should be able to stand at a curb and wait for a passing cab without fear of being mugged or killed—precisely because there are laws that punish these acts and that guarantee my right to life. And I think it will be readily agreed by reasonable persons that there is everything to commend the precept that the property of others should not be appropriated or converted by others. The Decalogue, in fact, sets an even more exacting standard: To covet another his goods is already to offend!
But when one raises the question of “justice,” the discussion becomes a little more complicated because, I have frequently stressed this point, “justice” is the asymptotic horizon of the law, yes, but it cannot simplistically be reduced to the law’s demands. Justice is a moral concept. And the matter is far from a simple opposition between a tycoon and a mall-owner on the one hand versus a puny employee on the other. Nor can it merely be an issue of P35 or so (whatever a can of the corned beef may have cost) and the millions, if not billions raked in by the entrepreneur. And a question of morality triggers an entire array of questions: Was pilfering the item the only way he could quiet his growling stomach? Could he not have asked for the item? Was he being paid a just wage? While it is a proposition of morality that can be defended that one is entitled to whatever is needed to preserve one’s life and to stave off death, was this one such situation? And while thirty-five pesos may seem to be “de minimis” can we lay it down as a rule that as long as one is hungry and the cost of the product does not exceed thirty-five pesos, one is entitled to it? Once more, there is the principle of Catholic social doctrine that the “right to use” is superior to “the right to own” — that ownership must not be a hindrance to the use by all of the resources of earth. But can it be reasonably said that the businessman’s ownership of the goods in the mall was a hindrance to the employee’s use of the goods of the earth? Were that the case, then would it not follow that all ownership would be repugnant to the right to use?
The entrepreneur could have chosen to be forgiving, and I have no doubt that the mall owner in question is a charitable man. Was this a failing on his part? On the other hand, were he to let the incident pass what effect would that kind of condonation have on employee discipline and morale, and ultimately on the future of his business and the viability of the employment of all others?
I am not making matters unduly complicated. Questions of morality are complicated. Issues of law likewise are, with the difference that in the case of legal questions, there is the letter of the law to which to turn, and the body of jurisprudence that has grown around the law by which to be oriented. And it does us all a disservice to reduce this to a rich versus poor issue, to vilify the mall owner as heartless and remorseless, and to characterize the employee as pitiful and exploited. Simplistic reduction is always unjust, and if we cry out for justice to be done, then that should start with doing justice to the ramifications of the issue.
rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@outlook.com
