AM Oreta v.

NLRC and Grulla

Topic: Nature of Probationary Employment, Due Process
Relevant Provisions: (just the title of the provision)

Art 281

Art 282

G. R. No. 74004
Aug. 10, 1989
Medialdela, J.
Petitioners: Canadian Opportunities Unlimited, inc. (Company)
Respondents: Bart Dalangin (Bart)
Summary: Grulla worked for ENDECO through AM Oreta. He was employed as a carpenter of AMO in its projects in
Saudi Arabia. He was injured, then he recovered. However, sometime after resuming work, he was terminated. He
now sues for illegal dismissal, with benefits, mainly the unexpired 10 months wages of his salary. AMO and ENDECO
alleged that he violated rules and did not perform satisfactorily in the probationary period of 3 months. POEA and lRC
ruled for Grulla. Hence this petition. The issue is w/n the termination was illegal, and whether the salaries for the
unexpired portion should be awarded. Yes, the termination was illegal. Grulla was not probationary, as he was
regular, as made clear from the contract. Even if he was probationary, he still must be terminated for just cause and
there was none in this case. There was also no due process afforded to Grulla.The SC also held that Grulla should
be paid the unexpired portion.
FACTS:

Sixto Grulla was engaged by ENDECO through AM Oreta (AMO) as a carpenter for its projects in Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia.

The contract of employment was for a period of 12 months.

Ten days after he left the Philippines, Grulla met an accident, fracturing his lumbar vertebra.
o After 12 days of confinement, he was told he could resume work after two weeks of PT.
o A month after the accident, Grulla reported for work and presented his medcert saying he was fit.

A few weeks after he started working again, he received a notice of termination.

Thus, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, recovery of medical benefits, unpaid wages for the unexpired
ten months of his contract, and P1000 as reimbursement for his medical expenses.
o AM Oreta said that the contract provides that violations of rules and regulations were grounds for
termination.
o They also said that he did not perform satisfactorily during the probationary period.

POEA ruled for Grulla

o Dismissal was illegal, award of wages was given, and medical expenses were admitted.

Petitioner appealed to the nLRC, who denied.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:
o
o

Whether or not dismissal was illegal yes

Whether or not award of wages is proper yes.

HELD:

Petition denied.

Decision of lower court affirmed.

RATIO:

AMO contends that the dismissal is valid because Grulla was probationary. He didnt perform up to par and
thus he was dismissed properly. this contention has no merit.
o At this point, the SC cited Article 280, defining Regular and Casual employment.
o They also cited Policy Instructions 12 what determines the regularity or casualness is not the
contract, but the nature of the job. If the job is usually necessary or desireable to the main business
of the employer, it is regular.
AMO admitted that Grulla was employed as a carpetnter for a period of 12 months. The contract reveals that
it is renewable at the option of the parties. It is clear from the contract that Grulla was not mere probationary.
The law states that when an employee is probationary, the employer must make known to the epmloyee the
standards by which he will be judged.
o There is no stipulation in the contract providing for a 3 month probationary period.
o There is also no evidence that Grulla was told that he was a probationer, and there was no
evidence that he was toldo f the requirements.
o Thus, there is justification in holding that he was regular, and the dismissal violated his security of
tenure.
Assumign that he WAS probationary, there still needs to be just cause.
o SC cites article 282, detailing the just cauaes for which an employer may terminate an employment.
The ground of unsatisfactory performance relied on by AMO is not one of the causes.
o Neither was it one of the grounds under the contract. (labo).
o AMO has also failed to show proof of particular acts constituting unsatisfactory performance,
allegedly due to his poor condition.
o In fact, tthere was a medcert saying that he was fine.
As to lack of due process, AMO argued that notice and hearing are only important if the epmloyee is
unaware of his problems, and that since Grulla knew that he was too injured to work, it was not required.
o Uh, no. Notice and hearing are essential elements of due process.
o Grulla was not notified of the charges, nor was he given a chance to defend himself.
The findings of POEA and NLRC that Grulla is entitled to his salaries, to benefits, and to the reimbursement
are with great weight and they wont be disturbed by the SC.
Pasensya na sa typos masakit ulo ko.