MARIWASA MANUFACTURING v LEOGARDO (Narvasa, 1989) QUICK FACTS: Dequila, a probationary utility worker of Mariwasa, agreed to have his

probationary period extended for another 3 months after the first 6 months, so that he may have another chance to improve his performance and qualify as a regular worker !fter the extension, he was terminated FACTS: "oaquin ! Dequila #or Dequilla$ was hired on probation by Mariwasa Manufacturing, %nc as a general utility worker on "anuary &', &()( !fter 6 months, he was informed that his work was unsatisfactory and had failed to meet the required standards *o give him another chance, and with Dequila+s written consent, Mariwasa extended Dequila+s probationary period for another three months: from "uly &' to ,ctober (, &()( Dequila+s performance, however, did not improve and Mariwasa terminated his employment at the end of the extended period Dequila filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Mariwasa and its -. for !dministration, !ngel * Da/o, and violation of .residential Decrees 0os (12 and &32( D%345*,3 ,6 M%0%7*38 ,6 9!:,3: 5omplaint is dismissed *ermination is ;ustified Thus, Dequila appeals to the Minister of Labor. M%0%7*43 ,6 9!:,3: Deputy Minister -icente 9eogardo, "r held that Dequila was already a regular employee at the time of his dismissal, thus, he was illegally dismissed #%nitial order: 3einstatement with full backwages 9ater amended to direct payment of Dequila<s backwages from the date of his dismissal to December 1', &(21 only $ ISSUE: =,0 employer and employee may, by agreement, extend the probationary period of employment beyond the six months prescribed in !rt 121 of the 9abor 5ode> RULING: 847, agreements stipulating longer probationary periods may constitute lawful exceptions to the statutory prescription limiting such periods to six months *he 75 in its decision in Buiser vs. Leogardo, Jr #&(2?$ said that @Aenerally, the probationary period of employment is limited to six #6$ months *he exception to this general rule is when the parties to an employment contract may agree otherwise, such as when the same is established by company policy or when the same is required by the nature of work to be performed by the employee %n the latter case, there is recognition of the exercise of managerial prerogatives in requiring a longer period of probationary employment, such as in the present case where the probationary period was set for eighteen #&2$ months, i e from May, &(2' to ,ctober, &(2& inclusive, especially where the employee must learn a particular kind of work such as selling, or when the ;ob requires certain qualifications, skills experience or training B

%n this case, the extension given to Dequila could not have been preCarranged to avoid the legal consequences of a probationary period satisfactorily completed %n fact, it was ex gratia, an act of liberality on the part of his employer affording him a second chance to make good after having initially failed to prove his worth as an employee 7uch an act cannot now un;ustly be turned against said employer<s account to compel it to keep on its payroll one who could not perform according to its work standards :y voluntarily agreeing to an extension of the probationary period, Dequila in effect waived any benefit attaching to the completion of said period if he still failed to make the grade during the period of extension :y reasonably extending the period of probation, the questioned agreement actually improved the probationary employee<s prospects of demonstrating his fitness for regular employment .etition granted ,rder of Deputy Minister 9eogardo reversed 5ase for illegal dismissal is dismissed