Short answer. Possibly, but not automatically. The Labor Code allows dismissal for fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed in an employee, and the key word is willful. A shortage alone is not proof of anything; the employer must show an act by you that justifies the loss of confidence.
What the law says
Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative
Labor Code, Article 282 — Just Causes For Dismissal. Read the full provision →
The ground is willful breach, not bad luck
The statute lists the causes for which an employer may terminate employment, and loss of trust is one of them. But the cause as written is fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed in you. Willful carries weight: it points to something done knowingly and deliberately, not to a mistake, an accounting discrepancy, or a shortfall whose origin nobody has traced. If your defence is that the money was never in your hands, the real question in the case is not whether cash went missing but whether the employer can identify an act of yours that broke the confidence placed in you. A missing amount is the beginning of an inquiry, not the end of one.
Not every job carries the same trust
This ground is not available against every worker in equal measure. It is aimed at employees whose duties involve confidence in a real sense — those who handle money, goods, or sensitive records, and those in managerial roles who exercise judgment on the employer's behalf. A cashier, teller, warehouse custodian, or collector is ordinarily within it. A worker whose job never involved custody of the funds is a poor fit for the ground, and the employer would more naturally have to argue neglect of duties or misconduct instead. Whether your particular position is one of trust is decided by what you actually did day to day, not by the job title printed on your contract.
The employer carries the burden, and the procedure matters
In a dismissal dispute the employer, not the worker, must prove the cause. That means producing something concrete: the reconciliation, the audit trail, the CCTV, the handover records, evidence of who else had access to the drawer. Shared access and a broken chain of custody are the classic weaknesses in a shortage case. Separately from the cause, the employer must also observe the required procedure — written notice telling you exactly what you are accused of, a real opportunity to answer and to be heard, and a written decision. A dismissal can fail because the ground was not proven, because the process was skipped, or both.
What to do now, and what this rule does not settle
Answer any notice to explain in writing, within the period given, and keep a stamped or acknowledged copy. Set out plainly what you did on the shift, who else had access, and what records exist. Do not sign a resignation or a quitclaim presented as a way to "settle quietly" without understanding what you are giving up. Note the limits of this provision: it governs whether there is a just cause to dismiss. It does not decide whether you owe the money as a civil matter, whether the amount may be deducted from your wages, or whether a criminal complaint would prosper. Outcomes depend entirely on the evidence in each case.