You are on page 1of 27

8.

PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE for a just cause or when authorized by existing laws, or when he
fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
*STATUTORY REFERENCE: PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.

ART. 281. Probationary employment. - Probationary (d) In all cases involving employees engaged on probationary
employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the basis, the employer shall make known to the employee the
employee started working, unless it is covered by an standards under which he will qualify as a regular employee at the
apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The services time of his
of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis engagement.
may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a
regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made RULES TO IMPLEMENT THE LABOR CODE
known by the employer to the employee at the time of his
engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a DEFINITION:
probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.
CASES:
ART. 61, 2ND SENTENCE- Contents of apprenticeship INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION vs.
agreements. NLRC GR72222 (89) 169 SCRA 508
The period of apprenticeship shall not exceed six months. FACTS: Petitioner ICMC is a non-profit organization dedicated to
Apprenticeship agreements providing for wage rates below the refugee service at the Philippine Refugee Processing Center in
legal minimum wage, which in no case shall start below 75 percent Morong, Bataan. It engaged the services of private respondent
of the applicable minimum wage, may be entered into only in Bernadette Galang on January 1983 as a probationary cultural
accordance with apprenticeship programs duly approved by the orientation teacher. After 3 months, she was informed orally and in
Secretary of Labor and Employment. The Department shall develop writing that her services were being terminated because she failed
standard model programs of apprenticeship. (As amended by in the performance evaluation of her supervisors during the
Section 1, Executive Order No. 111, December 24, 1986). teacher evaluation program.

BOOK VI, RULE I, SECTION VI - Probationary employment. On August 1983, Galang filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
(a) Where the work for which an employee has been engaged is unfair labor practice and unpaid wages against petitioner with the
learnable or apprenticeable in accordance with the standards then Ministry of Labor and Employment, praying for reinstatement
prescribed by the Department of Labor, the probationary with back wages, exemplary and moral damages.
employment period of the employee shall be limited to the
authorized learnership or apprenticeship period, whichever is On October 1983, Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for
applicable. illegal dismissal as well as the complaint for moral and exemplary
damages but ordering the ICMC to pay Galang the sum of
(b) Where the work is neither learnable nor apprenticeable, the P6,000.00 as payment for the last 3 months of the agreed
probationary employment period shall not exceed six (6) months employment period pursuant to her verbal contract of
reckoned from the date the employee actually started working. employment.
Both parties appealed the decision to the NLRC. On August 1985,
(c) The services of an employee who has been engaged on the NLRC, by a majority vote of Commissioners Guillermo C.
probationary basis may be terminated only Medina and Gabriel M. Gatchalian, sustained the decision of the
Labor Arbiter and dismissed both appeals for lack of merit.
Dissatisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition. December 31, 1991, after which period, her employment was
terminated.
ISSUE: W/N an employee who was terminated during the
probationary period of her employment is entitled to her salary for LA dismissed her complaint for illegal dismissal against PFCCI.
the unexpired portion of her six-month probationary employment?
NLRC set aside
HELD:
NO, Galang was terminated during her probationary period of LAs decision and ordered her reinstated to her last position held
employment (RFO) or to an equivalent position, with full backwages from Jan 1,
for failure toqualify as a regular member of petitioners teaching 1992 until she is reinstated.
staff in accordance with its reasonable standards.
Galang was found by petitioner to be deficient in classroom ISSUE: W/N Abril was a probationary employee.
management, teacher-student relationship and teaching
techniques. Failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance HELD:
with the reasonable standards of the employer is a just cause for NO, Abril is a regular employee. It is an elementary rule in the law
terminating a probationary employee specifically recognized under on labor relations that a probationary employee who is engaged to
Article 282 (now Article 281) of the Labor Code. work beyond the probationary period of six months as provided
The labor arbiters decision is erroneous. The award of salary for under Art. 281 of the Labor Code, as amended, or for any length of
the unexpired portionof the probationary employment on the time set forth by the employer, shall be considered a regular
ground that a probationary employment for 6months is an employee.
employment for a "definite period" which requires the employer to
exhaust the entire probationary period to give the employee the Article 281 of the Labor Code, as amended, allows the employer to
opportunity to meet the required standards. secure the services of an employee on a probationary basis which
allows him to terminate the latter for just cause or upon failure to
PHIL. FEDERATION OF CREDIT COOPERATIVES, INC. vs. qualify in accordance with reasonable standards set forth by the
NLRC, GR 121071 (98) 300 SCRA 72 employer at the time of his engagement.
FACTS: Victoria Abril was employed by PFCCI in different
capacities from 1982 to 1988, when she went on leave until she As defined In the case of INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION
gave birth. When she went back in 1989, after 8 months, another V. NLRC,
employee had been permanently appointed to her former position a probationary employee is one who is on trial by an employer
of office secretary. She accepted a position of Regional Field during which the employer determines whether or not he is
Officer. The contract reads: "That the employer hires the employee qualified for permanent employment. A probationary employment
on contractual basis to the position of Regional Field Officer of is made to afford the employer an opportunity to observe the
Region 4 under FCCI/WOCCU/Aid Project No. 8175 and to do the fitness of a probationer while at work, and to ascertain whether he
function as stipulated in the job description assigned to him (her): will become a proper and efficient
on probationary status effective February 17, 1990 for a period not employee.
to exceed six (6) months from said effectivity, subject to renewal
of this contract should the employee's performance be PURPOSE:
satisfactory." -Said period having elapsed, respondent was allowed
to work until PFCCI presented to her another employment contract ESPINA vs. CA GR 164582 (07) 519 SCRA 327
for a period of one year commencing on January 2, 1991 until FACTS: Respondent MY San informed its employees and union
that they intend to sell the company to respondent Monde and that
MY San will terminate their employment and payment of their gave complainants the remainder of their probationary period
separation pay will be in accordance with the law. In connection within which to prove their qualification for regular employment
with this event, the union and MY San agreed that a list of MY San therewith. Notwithstanding the opportunity given to herein
employees will be submitted to respondent Monde purposes of complainants to improve their performance to qualify for regular
rehiring if said employee applies and qualifies, subject to such employment with Monde, complainants either: (a) resigned from
criteria as the new corporation may impose. Respondent Monde their employment with Monde; (b) refused to report for work on 02
then commenced its operations. All the former employees of May 2001 and on the days following; or (c) failed to qualify for
respondent M.Y. San who were terminated upon its closure and regular employment at the expiration of the period of their
who applied and qualified for probationary employment, including probationary employment.
petitioners herein, started working for respondent Monde on a
contractual basis for a period of six months. Subsequently, ISSUE: W/N petitioners were illegally dismissed.
petitioners were terminated on various dates.
HELD: The decision of the NLRC was affirmed.
Thus, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and The SC held that petitioners were validly dismissed. Petitioners
underpayment, damages and attorneys fees and litigation cost were validly separated from respondent MY San.
with the NLRC- RAB.
Work is a necessity that has economic significance deserving legal
Petitioners alleged that respondent My San stopped its operations, protection. The provisions on social justice and protection to labor
but three days after, resumed its operation with the same top in the Constitution dictate so. However, employers are also
management running the business; the union officers, in exchange accorded rights and privileges to assure their self-determination
for being re-hired, acceded to bust the union; and the sale of and independence and reasonable return of capital. This mass of
respondent M.Y. San to respondent Monde was merely a ploy to privileges comprises the so-called management prerogatives. One
circumvent the provisions of the Labor Code. of the rights accorded an employer is the right to close an
establishment or undertaking. Just as no law forces anyone to go
Respondent M.Y. San insisted that its employer-employee into business, no law can compel anybody to continue the same.
relationship with petitioners had ceased to exist, thus, the The right to close the operations of an establishment or
complaint for illegal dismissal against it could no longer prosper. It undertaking is explicitly recognized under the Labor Code as one of
further contended that the power to hire and fire employees is now the authorized causes in terminating employment of workers, the
lodged in the new business owner, respondent Monde. only limitation being that the closure must not be for the purpose
of circumventing the provisions on terminations of employment
On the other hand, respondent Monde alleged that petitioners had embodied in article 283 of the Labor Code.
no cause of action against it. Monde claimed that the respective
supervisors of Monde conducted an evaluation of the performance Under Article 283 of the Labor Code, three requirements are
of all its probationary employees, including herein complainants, to necessary for a valid cessation of business operations, namely:
determine their fitness to qualify as regular employees therein. (1) service of a written notice to the employees and to the DOLE
The probationary employees of Monde who passed the at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof;
performance appraisal and who qualified as regular employees (2) the cessation must be bona fide in character; and
thereof were accordingly appointed as such. Out of the one (3) payment to the employees of termination pay amounting to at
hundred sixteen (116) probationary employees engaged by least one half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, or one (1)
respondent Monde, a total of seventy-four employees qualified for month pay, whichever is higher.
regular employment. For those who did not qualify for regular
employment, including herein complainants, respondent Monde
The records reveal that private respondent M.Y. San complied with In the case at bar, petitioners were notified of the standards they
the aforecited requirements. M.Y. San employees were adequately have to meet to qualify as regular employees of respondent Monde
informed of the intended business closure and a written notice to when the latter apprised them, at the start of their employment.
the Regional Director of DOLE was filed by respondent M.Y. San,
informing the DOLE that M.Y. San will be closed effective 31 Some of the petitioners in this case voluntarily resigned
January 2001. (Barnuevo, Reyes, Ollorsa, and Cerbito), some were validly
dismissed because of Absence Without Leave (Espina, Aquino,
The ultimate test of the validity of closure or cessation of Bandino, Petalio, Jr., Ebreo, B. Paz, Deocareza and L. Paz), while
establishment or undertaking is that it must be bona fide in some others were terminated because they failed to qualify as
character. And the burden of proving such falls upon the regular employees in accordance with the terms and conditions of
employer. their probationary employment with respondent Monde (Celis,
Fernandez, Rodriguez, Punzalan, Lourdes Alfonso Q., Panlilio,
Respondent M.Y. San in good faith complied with the requirements Arceo, Pascual, Bajo, Blanco, Abela, Fajanilag, and Wong).
for closure; sold and conveyed all its assets to respondent Monde
for valuable consideration; and there were no previous labor It must be noted that petitioners were terminated prior to the
problems. It has been ruled that an employer may adopt policies expiration of their probationary contracts. As probationary
or changes or adjustments in the operations to insure profit to employees, they enjoyed only temporary employment status. In
itself or protect the investments of its stockholders, and in the general terms, this meant that they were terminable anytime,
exercise of such management prerogative, the employer may permanent employment not having been attained in the meantime.
merge or consolidate its business with another, or sell or dispose The employer could well decide if he no longer needed the
all or substantially all of its assets and properties which may bring probationarys service or his performance fell short of
about the dismissal or termination of its employees in the process. expectations, as a probationary employee is one who, for a given
period of time, is under observation and evaluation to determine
Petitioners were also validly dismissed by respondent Monde. whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment. During
the probationary period, the employer is given the opportunity to
There is no dispute that petitioners were probationary employees observe the skill, competence and attitude of the employee to
as stated in their individual contracts of employment with determine if he has the qualification to meet the reasonable
respondent Monde. While petitioners were only probationary standards for permanent employment. The length of time is
employees who do not enjoy permanent status, nonetheless, they immaterial in determining the correlative rights of both the
were still entitled to the constitutional protection of security of employer and the employee in dealing with each other during said
tenure. As may be gleaned in article 281 of the Labor Code, their period. Thus, as long as the termination was made before the
employment may only be terminated for a valid and just cause or expiration of the six-month probationary period, the employer was
for failing to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the well within his rights to sever the employer-employee relationship.
reasonable standards made known to him by the employer at the A contrary interpretation would defeat the clear meaning of the
time of engagement and after being accorded due process. term probationary.

Procedural due process requires that the employee be given two Terminating employment is one of respondent Mondes
written notices before he is terminated, consisting of a notice prerogatives. As an employer, respondent Monde has the right to
which apprises the employee of the particular acts/omissions for regulate, according to its discretion and best judgment, including
which the dismissal is sought and the subsequent notice which work assignment, working methods, processes to be followed,
informs the employee of the employers decision to dismiss him. working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-
off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers.
Management has the prerogative to discipline its employees and to her master, cook the meals, housecleaning and babysitting. On 24
impose appropriate penalties on erring workers pursuant to Jan 1995, she had a talk with her master where she was told that
company rules and regulations. she is being sent home due to certain problems. 4. Complainant
pleaded that she continue her employment, confronted as she was
This Court has upheld a companys management prerogatives so with the debts she had to pay. But she was sent home the
long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the following day. While at the airport, a certain Ms. Go forced her to
employers interest and not for the purpose of defeating or sign an Affidavit where it stated that her leaving as a DH was
circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws and voluntary and that she would assume all the obligations for her
valid agreements. travel back to the Philippines. 5. She was only paid the sum of
NT$1,931 (12 days work). Respondent alleged that it was
The law imposes many obligations on the employer such as stipulated and agreed upon in the contract, that she would
providing just compensation to workers, observance of the undergo a 40day probationary period before she becomes a
procedural requirements of notice and hearing in the termination regular domestic helper. Also, she was charged of her placement
of employment. On the other hand, the law recognizes the right of fees as allowed by law and by the POEA rules and regulations.
the employer to expect from its workers not only good During the first 10 days of her probationary period, she was
performance, adequate work and diligence, but also good conduct observed to be inattentive and incompetent to perform her duties
and loyalty. The employer may not be compelled to continue to and responsibilities. 6. Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Rodriguez. 7.
employ such persons whose continuance in the service will NLRC deleted award of P155,000 for unearned wages since there is
patently be inimical to his interest. no illegal dismissal that took place.
8. CA reversed NLRC decision and reinstated Labor Arbiters
Thus, respondent Monde exercised in good faith its management
prerogative as there is no dispute that petitioners had been ISSUE: W/N Rodriguez was a probationary employee during the
habitually absent, neglectful of their work, and rendered time of her dismissal
unsatisfactory service, to the damage and prejudice of the
company. HELD:
Yes. Petitioner pointed out that they had agreed in their
PHILEMPLOY SERVICE SERVICE AND RESOURCES, INC. vs. employment contract that Anitas placement was subject to a 40-
RODRIGUEZ, GR 152616, (06) 486 SCRA 302 day probationary period. Anita is deemed to have admitted the
FACTS: Anita RODRIGUEZ applied with respondent PHILEMPLOY existence of this stipulation in the employment contract as she
Services and Resources, Inc. for deployment abroad as a factory never disputed petitioners assertion in all the pleadings that she
worker. When she was asked to report for work, Ms. Brenda submitted to the NLRC, the Court of Appeals, and this Court.
Castro, an official of respondent, demanded from her the sum of Hence, even if it were true that Anitas foreign employer
P60,000 as placement fee. 1. Since she could not afford such terminated her services after 10 days of her employment, there
amount, they agreed that she would initially pay P30T as down could be no illegal dismissal as the termination was effected during
payment and the balance of P30,000 plus 7% interest every month the agreed probationary period. Indeed, an employer, in the
thereafter through salary deductions. She then paid Ms. Castro the exercise of its management prerogative, may hire an employee on
P30T but was not issued any receipt. 2. Thereafter, she executed a a probationary basis in order to determine his fitness to perform
contract of employment as a domestic helper of one Chao Hung his work. The employees services may be terminated for a just
Ching of Taipei, Taiwan with a monthly salary of NT$14,010, plus cause or for his failure to qualify as a regular employee based on
free food and accommodation for a period of 1 year. 3. On 13 Jan reasonable standards made known to him at the time of his
1995, she was deployed to Taiwan. As such DH, she worked from engagement. Anita was employed as a domestic helper on a
5am until 10pm. Among her chores were to carwash the vehicle of probationary basis. Her foreign employer interviewed her through
telephone calls and apprised her of the terms and conditions of her job. Balicena on the other hand alleged that he is a regular
employment as house helper. Upon her arrival at her employers employee, although he was not able to present any contract
house in Taiwan, her employer apprised her again of her duties as establishing his status as a regular employee; that the mishap
house helper. The findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter which the involving the company's vehicle which was used without his
NLRC and the Court Appeals adopted reveal that Anitas foreign permission and knowledge could not be blamed upon him; that the
employer was dissatisfied with her performance. The law in alleged reports which he failed to send were not reminded to him,
protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither oppression verbally or in writing; that his sales for the period April to August,
nor selfdestruction of the employer. While the Constitution is 1980 is higher compared to that for the same period in 1979; and
committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the that the alleged accounts remaining unpaid as of 11/6/1980 would
working class, it should not be supposed that every labor dispute have been collected in full if he were still the Manager, among
would automatically be decided in favor of labor.T other things. Regional Director and Minister of Labor ruled in favor
of Balicena, ordering his reinstatement, payment of his backwages,
GRAND MOTORS CORP. vs. MOLE 130 SCRA 436 (84) and other privileges.
FACTS: Respondent Balicena was the Branch Manager of the
petitioner companys Iloilo Branch. Prior to his employment in ISSUE: W/N private respondent's employment as Branch Manager
Grand Motor, he was the Finance Officer of Warner, Barnes, & Co., was temporary or probationary, and not regular and permanent?
when allegedly Mr. Alfredo Cisneros (acting branch manager)
induced him to apply for the position of Branch Manager, as their HELD: PETITION GRANTED
company (petitioner) was looking for a CPA. At the outset, Balicena was a probationary employee:
There was no written proof of Balicenas appointment or
He applied for the job and was accepted. He started working for employment as regular and permanent Branch Manager. There
the petitioner company on April 1 but resigned from his position in was the fact that he assumed his work as of April 1 but resigned
Warner, Barnes, & Co. only on April 28. However, he was from his previous company only on April 28, meaning that if he
terminated only after working for the company for only 4 months was really appointed as regular and permanent then he would
because of infractions alleged by the petitioner, such as: have resigned immediately from his old company. But since he was
He failed to submit promptly the monthly Income and Loss not yet sure of his status in the petitioner corporation, he resigned
Statement, Comparative Projections & Actual Sales Report; late.
the Comparative Performance Report dated 7/8/1980 on the The Court cannot sustain Balicenas claim, the absence of a
operation of the Iloilo Branch for the month of June and May, written contract due to the fact that contracts were given only to
1980, the Cash Sales of the Iloilo Branch went down to P91,318.41 those who will pass the probationary period and the rank-and-file
for June, 1980, as compared with the sales for the month of May, employee, not to those managerial ones, are contrary to usual
1980 in the sum of P174,697.77; business practice especially in multi-million enterprises as the
Belicena in violation of company policy and without clearance petitioner corporation. Considering the magnitude of its sales and
from the head office in Cebu, extended personal accounts in favor operation, petitioner corporation must have taken the necessary
of 15 persons which as of November, 1980 produced delinquent precautions to test the qualifications, ability and performance of its
accounts amounting to P18,435.80; and Branch Manager, but he did not. The conclusion is inevitable that
Belicena claimed lack of knowledge of the vehicular accident his hiring was temporary.
caused by a subordinate and failed to provide prompt Balicena had never been hired as manager, and the petitioner
administrative disciplinary action against the erring employee. company and Balicenas former company are engaged in different
They claimed that Balicena is only a probationary employee, which kinds of business so it was necessary for Balicena to undergo a
would be observed by the company for 4-6 months and that period of probation to test his qualifications, skills and experience
Balicena knew that there is a possibility that he would not get the since managing is a new experience for him. The employer has the
right or is at liberty to choose as to who will be hired and who will ISSUE: W/N an employee who was terminated during the
be declined. It is within the exercise of this right to select his probationary period of her employment is entitled to salary for the
employees that the employer may set or fix probationary period unexpired portion of her 6-month probationary employment.
within which the latter may test and observed the conduct of the HELD:
former before hiring him permanently. "The right of the laborer to There is justifiable basis for the reversal of public respondents
sell his labor to such persons as he may choose is, in its essence, award of salary for the unexpired three-month portion of private
the same as the right of an employer to purchased labor from any respondents six-month probationary employment in the light of its
person whom it chooses. The employer and the employee have express finding that there was no illegal dismissal. There is no
thus an equality of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. dispute that private respondent was terminated during her
probationary period of employment for failure to qualify as a
DISPOSITION: Order of the Deputy Minister of Labor is regular member of petitioners teaching staff in accordance with its
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs. PETITION GRANTED. reasonable standards.

INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION VS Records show that private respondent was found by petitioner to
NLRC (1989) be deficient in classroom management, teacher-student
FACTS: Petitioner International Catholic Migration Commission relationship and teaching techniques.[8] Failure to qualify as a
(ICMC), a non-profit organization dedicated to refugee service at regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards of
the Philippine Refugee Processing Center in Morong, Bataan the employer is a just cause for terminating a probationary
engaged the services of private respondent Bernadette Galang as a employee specifically recognized under Article 282 (now Article
probationary cultural orientation teacher with a monthly salary of 281) of the Labor Code. A probationary employee, as understood
P2,000.00. under Article 282 (now Article 281) of the Labor Code, is one who
Three (3) months thereafter, private respondent was informed, is on trial by an employer during which the employer determines
orally and in writing, that her services were being terminated for whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment.
her failure to meet the prescribed standards of petitioner as
reflected in the performance evaluation of her supervisors - Private A probationary appointment is made to afford the employer an
respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor opportunity to observe the fitness of a probationer while at work,
practice and unpaid wages against petitioner with the then Ministry and to ascertain whether he will become a proper and efficient
of Labor and Employment, praying for reinstatement with employee. The word probationary, as used to describe the period
backwages, exemplary and moral damages. - Labor Arbiter of employment, implies the purpose of the term or period, but not
rendered his decision dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal its length. Being in the nature of a trial period the essence of a
as well as the complaint for moral and exemplary damages but probationary period of employment fundamentally lies in the
ordering the petitioner to pay private respondent the sum of purpose or objective sought to be attained by both the employer
P6,000.00 as payment for the last three (3) months of the agreed and the employee during said period.
employment period pursuant to her verbal contract of
employment. The length of time is immaterial in determining the correlative
Both parties appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations rights of both in dealing with each other during said period. While
Commission. the employer, as stated earlier, observes the fitness, propriety and
efficiency of a probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for
The NLRC, by a majority vote, sustained the decision of the Labor permanent employment, the probationer, on the other, seeks to
Arbiter and thus dismissed both appeals for lack of merit. - prove to the employer, that he has the qualifications to meet the
Dissatisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition. reasonable standards for permanent employment. It is well settled
that the employer has the right or is at liberty to choose who will
be hired and who will be denied employment. In that sense, it is As Escorpizos appeal was favorably considered, she was allowed
within the exercise of the right to select his employees that the to teach during the school year 1991-1992.
employer may set or fix a probationary period within which the However, her continued employment was conditioned on her
latter may test and observe the conduct of the former before hiring passing the PBET. Unfortunately, Escorpizo failed again.
him permanently.
Undaunted, Escorpizo took the examination a third time.At the end
As the law now stands, Article 281 of the Labor Code gives ample of the school year, respondent university evaluated the teachers
authority to the employer to terminate a probationary employee performance to determine who would be in the list for the next
for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee school year. Escorpizo, not having passed the PBET yet, was not
in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the included.
employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. There is Much later, on June 8, 1992, the results of the PBET were released
nothing under Article 281 of the Labor Code that would preclude and this time Escorpizo passed said examination. Nevertheless, on
the employer from extending a regular or a permanent June 15, 1992, respondent
appointment to an employee once the employer finds that the university no longer renewed Escorpizos contract of employment
employee is qualified for regular employment even before the on the ground that she failed to qualify as a regular teacher.
expiration of the probationary period.
This prompted Escorpizo to file on July 16, 1992 a complaint for
Conversely, if the purpose sought by the employer is neither illegal dismissal, payment of backwages and reinstatement against
attained nor attainable within the said period, Article 281 of the private respondents.
Labor Code does not likewise preclude the employer from
terminating the probationary employment on justifiable causes as ISSUE: W/N the dismissal was illegal? ,since Escorpizo had
in the instant case. attained the status of a regular employee having rendered very
satisfactory performance as probationary teacher for two years,
ESCORPIZO, vs. UNIVERSITY OF BAGUIO consistent with the collective bargaining agreement between the
FACTS: Petitioner Esperanza Escorpizo was initially hired by respondent university and petitioner union of which Escorpizo is a
respondent university on June 13, 1989 as a high school classroom member.
teacher.
Under the rules of the respondent university, appointment to teach HELD:
during the first two years at the university is probationary in NO, Escorpizo was not illegally dismissed. Her contract merely
nature. expired. Ratio: A probationary employee is one who, for a given
During the probation period, the teacher is observed and evaluated period of time, is being observed and evaluated to determine
to determine his competency.Attainment of a permanent status by whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment. A
a faculty member is conditioned upon compliance with certain probationary appointment affords the employer an opportunity to
requirements, such as passing the professional board examination observe the skill, competence and attitude of a probationer.
for teachers (PBET).
On March 18, 1991, respondent university informed Escorpizo that The word probationary, as used to describe the period of
her employment was being terminated at the end of the school employment, implies the purpose of the term or period. While the
semester in view of her failure to pass the PBET.But before the employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a
start of the school year 1991-1992, Escorpizo reapplied and probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent
pleaded that she be given another chance. employment, the probationer at the same time, seeks to prove to
She told the respondent school that she had just taken the PBET the employer that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable
and hoped to pass it. standards for permanent employment.
REASONING: The rules of the university clearly states that the He applied for the job and was accepted. He started working for
first two years at the University is probationary in nature and the the petitioner company on April 1 but resigned from his position in
following conditions must concur in order that a probationary Warner, Barnes, & Co. only on April 28.
teacher may be extended a regular appointment;
(1) the faculty member must satisfactorily complete the 1. However, he was terminated only after working for the company
probationary period of four semesters or two years, within which for 4 months (April to August). Petitioner company alleged that;
his performance shall be observed and evaluated for the purpose
of determining his competency and fitness to be extended (a) he failed to submit promptly the monthly Income and
permanent status; and Loss Statement, Comparative Projections & Actual Sales Report;
(2) the faculty member must pass the PBET or an equivalent civil (b) the Comparative Performance Report dated July 8,
service examination. 1980 on the operation of the Iloilo Branch for the month of June
and May, 1980, the Cash Sales of the Iloilo Branch went down to
Escorpizo failed to meet the 2nd requirement to be a regular P91,318.41 for June, 1980, as compared with the sales for the
employee which is to pass the PBET. month of May, 1980 in the sum of P174,697.77;
Though the CBA does not mention that passing the PBET is a (c) Belicena in violation of company policy and without
prerequisite for attaining permanent status as a teacher. clearance from the head office in Cebu, extended personal
Nevertheless, the aforecited CBA provision must be read in accounts in favor of 15 persons which as of November, 1980
conjunction with statutory and administrative regulations produced delinquent accounts amounting to P18,435.80; and
governing faculty qualifications. (d) Belicena claimed lack of knowledge of the vehicular
It is settled that an existing law enters into and forms part of a accident caused by a subordinate and failed to provide prompt
valid contract without the need for the parties expressly making administrative disciplinary action against the erring employee.
reference to it. Further, while contracting parties may establish They claimed that Balicena is only a probationary employee, which
such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as would be observed by the company for 46 months and that
they may see fit, such right to contract is subject to limitation that Balicena knew that there is a possibility that he would not get the
the agreement must not be contrary to law or public policy. job.

DECS Order No. 38, series of 1990, a regulation implementing 2. Balicena on the other hand alleged that he is a regular
Presidential Decree No. 1006[18] or the Decree Professionalizing employee, although he was not able to present any contract
Teaching stipulates that no person shall be allowed to engage in establishing his status as a regular employee; that the mishap
teaching and/or act as a teacher unless he has registered as involving the company's vehicle which was used without his
professional teacher with the National Board for Teachers. permission and knowledge could not be blamed upon him; that the
alleged reports which he failed to send were not reminded to him,
EMPLOYER RIGHT TO SET PERIOD / OBLIGATION verbally or in writing; that his sales for the period April to August,
GRAND MOTORS CORP V. MOLE 130 SCRA 436 (1984) 1980 is higher compared to that for the same period in 1979; and
FACTS: Respondent Balicena was the Branch Manager of the that the alleged accounts remaining unpaid as of November 6,
petitioner companys Iloilo Branch. He was the Finance Officer of 1980 would have been collected in full if he were still the Manager,
Warner, Barnes, & Co. (no.2 of the company) when allegedly, Mr. among other things.
Alfredo Cisneros (the then acting branch manager of the company
in Iloilo) induced him to apply for the position of Branch Manager, 3. Regional Director and Minister of Labor ruled in favor of
as their company (petitioner) was looking for a CPA. Balicena, ordering his reinstatement, payment of his back wages,
and other privileges.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner may set the period/obligation of probation Flores by which his incompetency was adjudged; much less did
they specify how the latter failed to live up to such reasonable
HELD: standards. Hence, his dismissal was unwarranted.
Yes, The highest previous position he attained was that of Finance
Officer. His position with petitioner's Iloilo Branch was his first as On appeal, NLRC affirmed the POEA decision.
Manager. Moreover, Warner, Barnes & Co., private respondent
previous employer, and petitioner are engaged in different kind of In addition, it ruled that the designation of Flores as floorman
business. instead of crane operator for which he was hired violated his
Managing petitioner's Iloilo Branch was entirely new experience for employment contract.
private respondent.
It was, therefore, necessary for private respondent to undergo a The NLRC concluded that since Flores never worked as crane
period of probation to test his qualification, skill and experience." operator, his foreign employer could not have observed and
Indeed, the employer has the right or is at liberty to choose as to assessed his performance as such and then come up with a
who will be hired and who will be decline. performance evaluation sheet, especially considering his consistent
claim that he was made to work as floorman instead.
It is within the exercise of this right to select his employees that
the employer may set or fix probationary period within which the Subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by ORIENT EXPRESS
latter may test and observed the conduct of the former before and NADRICO was denied. Hence, this petition.
hiring him permanently.
"The right of the laborer to sell his labor to such persons as he ISSUE: W/N the dismissal of FLORES is valid?
may choose is, in its essence, the same as the right of an
employer to purchased labor from any person whom it chooses. HELD: AFFIRMED
The employer and the employee have thus an equality of rights Under Art. 281 of the Labor Code, the services of an employee
guaranteed by the Constitution. hired on a probationary basis may be terminated when he fails to
If the employer can compel the employer the employee to work qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable
against the latter's will, this is servitude. If the employee can standards made known by the employer to the employee at the
compel the employer to give him work against the employer's will, time of his engagement.
this is oppression.'' However, the Court cannot sustain his dismissal on this ground
because petitioner failed to specify the reasonable standards by
ORIENT EXPRESS PLACEMENT PHILIPPINES vs NLRC which private respondent's alleged poor performance was
FACTS: ANTONIO F. FLORES was hired as crane operator by evaluated, much less to prove that such standards were made
ORIENT EXPRESS PLACEMENT PHILIPPINES for 1 year, subject to a known to him at the time of his recruitment in Manila.
3-month probationary period. However, after 1 month and 5 days
in Saudi Arabia, Flores was repatriated to the Philippines. Both private respondent's Agency-Worker Agreement with ORIENT
Consequently, he filed a complaint with the POEA for having been EXPRESS and NADRICO never mentioned that:
terminated from work for no valid reason. ORIENT EXPRESS and He must first take and pass a Crane Operators' License
NADRICO countered that Flores was terminated for poor job Examination in Saudi Arabia before he would be allowed to even
performance. touch a crane;
He would be assigned as floorman pending release of the results
On July 1992, POEA rendered a decision in favor of of the examination or in the event that he failed;
complainant. It was observed that neither ORIENT EXPRESS nor He would be subjected to a performance evaluation by his
NADRICO pointed out the reasonable standards of work required of superior 1 month after his hiring to determine whether the
company was amenable to continuing with his employment. 31, 1994. On October 29, 1994, his contract was renewed from
Hence, respondent Flores could not be faulted for precisely November 1, 1994 up to March 3, 1995.
harboring the impression that he was hired as crane operator for a Sometime in May of 1996, Paras was re-hired on a probationary
definite period of 1 year to commence upon his arrival at the work- basis as a manufacturing trainee at the Plant Engineering
site and to terminate at the end of 1 year. Maintenance Department.

No other condition was laid out except that he was to be on He and the new and re-hired employees were given an orientation
probation for 3 months. No standard whatsoever by which such on May 15, 1996 respecting the company's history, corporate
probationary period could be hurdled was specified and made philosophy, organizational structure, and company rules and
known to him. regulations, including the company standards for regularization,
Due process dictates that an employee be apprised beforehand of code of conduct and company-provided benefits.
the condition of his employment and of the terms of advancement
therein. Paras started reporting for work on May 27, 1996. He was
Precisely, implicit in Art. 281 of the Code is the requirement that assigned at the paint ovens, air make-up and conveyors. As part of
reasonable standards be previously made known by the employer the MMPC's policy, Paras was evaluated by his immediate
to the probationary employee at the time of his engagement, such supervisors after six (6) months, and received an average rating.
an essential requirement was not met by petitioner, even Later, his supervisor informed Paras that based on his performance
assuming that Flores' alleged unsatisfactory performance was true. rating, he would be regularized.
Besides, unsatisfactory performance is not one of the just causes
for dismissal under the Labor Code. However, the Department and Division Managers, reviewed the
performance evaluation made on Paras. They unanimously agreed,
DISPOSITION: The assailed Decision and Resolution of NLRC along with Paras' immediate supervisors, that the performance of
are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner Orient Express Placement Paras was unsatisfactory.
Philippines. As a consequence, Paras was not considered for regularization.

MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORP VS CHRYSLER PHIL. LABOR On November 26, 1996, he received a Notice of Termination dated
UNION (2004) November 25, 1996, informing him that his services were
FACTS: Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation (MMPC) is a terminated effective the said date since he failed to meet the
domestic corporation engaged in the assembly and distribution of required company standards for regularization.
Mitsubishi motor vehicles. Chrysler Philippines Labor Union (CPLU)
is a legitimate labor organization and the duly certified bargaining ISSUE: W/N not Paras was already a regular employee on
agent of the hourly-paid regular rank and file employees of MMPC. November 26, 1996.

Nelson Paras was a member of CPLU while wife, Cecille Paras, was HELD:
the President of the Chrysler Philippines Salaried Employees Union Yes, Paras was already a regular employee. An employer, in the
(CPSU). exercise of its management prerogative, may hire an employee on
Nelson Paras was first employed by MMPC as a shuttle bus driver. a probationary basis in order to determine his fitness to perform
work. Under Article 281 of the Labor Code, the employer must
He resigned and went to Saudi Arabia to work as a diesel mechanic inform the employee of the standards for which his employment
and heavy equipment operator in from 1982 to 1993. may be considered for regularization. Such probationary period,
When he returned to the Philippines, he was re-hired as a welder unless covered by an apprenticeship agreement, shall not exceed
fabricator at MMPC tooling shop from October 3,1994 to October six (6) months from the date the employee started working. The
employees services may be terminated for just cause or for his But according to the petitioner he is already a regular employee
failure to qualify as a regular employee based on reasonable effective November 16, 1996, using Article 13 of the Civil Code
standards made known to him. Respondent Paras was employed that one month is composed of 30 days, six months total 180
as a management trainee on a probationary basis. During the days.
orientation conducted on May 15, 1996, he was apprised of the
standards upon which his regularization would be based. He Hence, using May 20, 1996 as the reference point, it was already
reported for work on May 27, 1996. considered a dismissal since it was made after the lapse of his
probationary employment.
As per the company's policy, the probationary period was from
three (3) months to a maximum of six (6) months. Applying Article ISSUE: W/N probationary employment is employment for a
13 of the Civil Code, the probationary period of six (6) months definite period.
consists of one hundred eighty (180) days. This is in conformity
with paragraph one, Article 13 of the Civil Code, which provides HELD:
that the months which are not designated by their names shall be Section 6 (d) of Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules of Book VI of
understood as consisting of thirty (30) days each. the Labor Code (Department Order No. 10, Series of 1997)
provides that:
The number of months in the probationary period, six (6), should (d) In all cases of probationary employment, the employer shall
then be multiplied by the number of days within a month, thirty make known to the employee the standards under which he will
(30); hence, the period of one hundred eighty (180) days. As qualify as a regular employee at the time of his engagement.
clearly provided for in the last paragraph of Article 13, in
computing a period, the first day shall be excluded and the last Where no standards are made known to the employee at that
day included. time, he shall be deemed a regular employee.

Thus, the one hundred eighty (180) days commenced on May 27, We hold that respondent Middleby substantially notified petitioner
1996, and ended on November 23, 1996. The termination letter of the standards to qualify as a regular employee when it apprised
dated November 25, 1996 was served on respondent Paras only at him, at the start of his employment, that it would evaluate his
3:00 a.m. of November 26, 1996.He was, by then, already a supervisory skills after five months.
regular employee of the petitioner under Article 281 of the Labor
Code. Conversely, an employer is deemed to substantially comply with
the rule on notification of standards if he apprises the employee
ALCIRA vs. NLRC that he will be subjected to a performance evaluation on a
FACTS: Petitioner Radin C. Alcira was hired by respondent particular date after his hiring.
Middleby as engineering support services supervisor on a
probationary period for six months. We agree with the labor arbiter when he ruled that:
Despite the indication of probationary period in the appointment In the instant case, petitioner cannot successfully say that he was
paper, the dates indicated in the copies in the possession of the never informed by private respondent of the standards that he
petitioner and the respondent, were different, May 20, 1996 and must satisfy in order to be converted into regular status.
May 27, 1996, respectively.
This rans (sic) counter to the agreement between the parties that
On November 20, 1996, unhappy with petitioners performance, after five months of service the petitioners performance would be
respondent Middeby terminated the formers services. evaluated. It is only but natural that the evaluation should be
made vis--vis the performance standards for the job.
4. Petitioners, then, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
Private respondent Trifona Mamaradlo speaks of such standard in and claims for back wages, earned commissions and other benefits
her affidavit referring to the fact that petitioner did not perform 5. Regional director of MOLE dismissed the complaints of
well in his assigned work and his attitude was below par compared petitioners except for the claim for allowances.
to the companys standard required of him. 6. Deputy minister Leogardy of MOLE affirmed the decision
of the regional director citing that the petitioners have not attained
DURATION / EXPIRATION permanent status since private respondent was justified in
requiring a longer period of probation. Leogardo likewise ruled that
BUISER V. LEOGARDO 131 SCRA 151 (1984) the termination was valid.
FACTS: Petitioners were employed by the private respondent
GENERAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY COMPANY as sales ISSUE: W/N the petitioners are probationary employees
representatives and charged with the duty of soliciting
advertisements for inclusion in a telephone directory. HELD:
Generally, the probationary period of employment is limited to six
1. The records show that petitioners Iluminada Ver Buiser (6) months. The exception to this general rule is When the parties
and Ma. Mercedes P. Intengan entered into an "Employment to an employment contract may agree otherwise, such as when
Contract (on Probationary Status)" on May 26, 1980 with private the same is established by company policy or when the same is
respondent, a corporation engaged in the business of publication required by the nature of work to be performed by the employee.
and circulation of the directory of the Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company. Petitioner Ma. Cecilia Rillo-Acuna entered into In the latter case, there is recognition of the exercise of
the same employment contract on June 11, 1980 with the private managerial prerogatives in requiring a longer period of
respondent. probationary employment, such as in the present case where the
2. Among others, the "Employment Contract (On probationary period was set for eighteen (18) months, i.e. from
Probationary Status)" included the following common provisions: May, 1980 to October, 1981 inclusive, especially where the
The company hereby employs the employee as telephone employee must learn a particular kind of work such as selling, or
representative on a probationary status for a period of eighteen when the job requires certain qualifications, skills, experience or
(18) months, i.e. from May 1980 to October 1981, inclusive. It is training.
understood that daring the probationary period of employment,
the Employee may be terminated at the pleasure of the company Policy Instruction No. 11 of the Minister of Labor and Employment
without the necessity of giving notice of termination or the has clarified any and all doubts on the period of probationary
payment of termination pay. The Employee recognizes the fact employment. It states as follows:
that the nature of the telephone sales representative's job is such Probationary Employment has been the subject of
that the company would be able to determine his true character, misunderstanding in some quarter. Some people believe
conduct and selling capabilities only after the publication of the six (6) months is the probationary period in all cases. On
directory, and that it takes about eighteen (18) months before his the other hand employs who have already served the
worth as a telephone saw representative can be fully evaluated probationary period are sometimes required to serve again
inasmuch as the advertisement solicited by him for a particular on probation.
year are published in the directory only the following year.
3. Private respondent prescribed sales quotas to be Under the Labor Code, six (6) months is the general
accomplished or met by the petitioners. Failing to meet their probationary period ' but the probationary period is
respective sales quotas, the petitioners were dismissed from the actually the period needed to determine fitness for the job.
service by the private respondent.
This period, for lack of a better measurement is deemed to and Gabriel M. Gatchalian, sustained the decision of the Labor
be the period needed to learn the job. Arbiter and dismissed both appeals for lack of merit. Dissatisfied,
petitioner filed the instant petition.
The purpose of this policy is to protect the worker at the
same time enable the employer to make a meaningful ISSUE: W/N an employee who was terminated during the
employee selection. This purpose should be kept in mind in probationary period of her employment is entitled to her salary for
enforcing this provision of the Code. This issuance shall the unexpired portion of her six-month probationary employment?
take effect immediately.
HELD: GRANTED
The very contracts of employment signed and acquiesced to by the NO, Galang was terminated during her probationary period of
petitioners specifically indicate that "the company hereby employs employment for failure to qualify as a regular member of
the employee as telephone sales representative on a probationary petitioners teaching staff in accordance with its reasonable
status for a period of eighteen (18) months, i.e. from May 1980 to standards. Galang was found by petitioner to be deficient in
October 1981, inclusive. This stipulation is not contrary to law, classroom management, teacher-student relationship and teaching
morals and public policy. techniques.
Failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the
INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION vs reasonable standards of the employer is a just cause for
NLRC (Duration / Exception) terminating a probationary employee specifically recognized under
FACTS: Petitioner ICMC is a non-profit organization dedicated to Article 282 (now Article 281) of the Labor Code.
refugee service at the Philippine Refugee Processing Center in
Morong, Bataan. It engaged the services of private respondent The labor arbiters decision is erroneous.
Bernadette Galang on January 1983 as a probationary cultural
orientation teacher. The award of salary for the unexpired portion of the probationary
employment on the ground that a probationary employment for 6
After 3 months, she was informed orally and in writing that her months is an employment for a "definite period" which requires the
services were being terminated because she failed in the employer to exhaust the entire probationary period to give the
performance evaluation of her supervisors during the teacher employee the opportunity to meet the required standards.
evaluation program.
A probationary employee is one who is on trial by an employer
On August 1983, Galang filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, during which the employer determines whether or not he is
unfair labor practice and unpaid wages against petitioner with the qualified for permanent employment.
then Ministry of Labor and Employment, praying for reinstatement A probationary appointment is made to afford the employer an
with backwages, exemplary and moral damages. opportunity to observe the fitness of a probationer while at work,
and to ascertain whether he will become a proper and efficient
On August 1983 , Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal employee.
dismissal as well as the complaint for moral and exemplary The word probationary, as used to describe the period of
damages but ordering the ICMC to pay Galang the sum of employment, implies the purpose of the term or period, but not its
P6,000.00 as payment for the last 3 months of the agreed length.
employment period pursuant to her verbal contract of Being in the nature of a trial period the essence of a probationary
employment. period of employment fundamentally lies in the purpose or
Both parties appealed the decision to the NLRC. On 8/22/1985, the objective sought to be attained by both the employer and the
NLRC, by a majority vote of Commissioners Guillermo C. Medina employee during said period. The length of time is immaterial in
determining the correlative rights of both in dealing with each HOLIDAY INN MANILA VS NLRC
other during said period. FACTS: Elena Honasan applied for employment with the Holiday
Inn and was on April 15, 1991, accepted for "on-the-job training"
While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency as a telephone operator for a period of three weeks.
of a probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent For her services, she received food and transportation allowance.
employment, the probationer, on the other, seeks to prove to the On May 13, 1992, after completing her training, she was employed
employer, that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable on a "probationary basis" for a period of six months ending
standards for permanent employment. November 12, 1991.

Nothing would preclude the employer from extending a regular or


a permanent appointment to an employee once the employer finds Her employment contract stipulated that the Hotel could terminate
that the employee is qualified for regular employment even before her probationary employment at any time prior to the expiration of
the expiration of the probationary period. the six-month period in the event of her failure (a) to learn or
There was no showing, as borne out by the records, that there was progress in her job; (b) to faithfully observe and comply with the
circumvention of the rights of Galang when she was informed of hotel rules and the instructions and orders of her superiors; or (c)
her termination. to perform her duties according to hotel standards.

Her dismissal does not appear to us as arbitrary, fanciful or On November 8, 1991, four days before the expiration of the
whimsical. She was duly notified, orally and in writing, that her stipulated deadline, Holiday Inn notified her of her dismissal, on
services were terminated for failure to meet the prescribed the ground that her performance had not come up to the
standards of petitioner as reflected in the performance evaluation standards of the Hotel.
conducted by her supervisors during the teacher evaluating Honasan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that she
program. was already a regular employee at the time of her separation and
so was entitled to full security of tenure.
The dissatisfaction of petitioner over the performance of private
respondent in this regard is a legitimate exercise of its prerogative ISSUE: W/N Honasan was already a regular employee at the time
to select whom to hire or refuse employment for the success of its of her dismissal, which was made 4 days days before the
program or undertaking. expiration of the probation period.

The lower court abused its discretion when it ordered ICMC to HELD:
Galang her salary for the unexpired three-month portion of her We find in the Hotel's system of double probation a transparent
six-month probationary employment when she was validly scheme to circumvent the plain mandate of the law and make it
terminated during her probationary employment. To sanction such easier for it to dismiss its employees even after they shall have
action would not only be unjust, but oppressive on the part of the already passed probation. The petitioners had ample time to
employer. summarily terminate Honasan's services during her period of
probation if they were deemed unsatisfactory.
DISPOSITION: The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the
NLRC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as it ordered The employer has absolute discretion in hiring his employees in
petitioner to pay private respondent her P6,000.00 salary for the accordance with his standards of competence and probity. This is
unexpired portion of her six-month probationary employment. No his prerogative. Once hired, however, the employees are entitled
cost. to the protection of the law even during the probation period and
more so after they have become members of the regular force.
The employer does not have the same freedom in the hiring of his BERNARDO V NLRC (FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY)
employees as in their dismissal. Honasan was placed by the FACTS: 43 Complainants are deaf-mutes who were hired by
petitioner on probation twice, first during her on-the job training respondent Far East Bank and Trust Co. as Money Sorters and
for three weeks, and next during another period of six months, Counters through an "Employment Contract for Handicapped
ostensibly in accordance with Article 281. Workers".

Her probation clearly exceeded the period of six months prescribed FAR EAST disclaimed that BERNARDO ET AL were regular
by this article. Probation is the period during which the employer employees AND that they were hired temporarily under a special
may determine if the employee is qualified for possible inclusion in employment arrangement due to "pakiusap".
the regular force.
NLRC affirmed ruling of the labor arbiter that BERNARDO ET AL
In the case at bar, the period was for three weeks, during could not be deemed regular employees under Art. 280 of the
Honasan's on-the-job training. When her services were continued Labor Code.
after this training, the petitioners in effect recognized that she had
passed probation and was qualified to be a regular employee. ISSUES W/N NLRC is guilty of grave abuse of discretion in holding
Honasan was certainly under observation during her three-week that
on-the-job training. 1. Money sorters and counters working in a bank are not regular
employees.
If her services proved unsatisfactory then, she could have been 2. Employment contracts signed and renewed by the petitioners,
dropped as early as during that period. But she was not. On the which provide for a period of 6 months, were valid.
contrary, her services were continued, presumably because they
were acceptable, although she was formally placed this time on HELD:
probation. 1. YES, Only the employees, who worked for more than 6 months
and whose contracts were renewed are deemed regular. Hence,
Even if it be supposed that the probation did not end with the their dismissal from employment was illegal.
three-week period of onthe-job training, there is still no reason
why that period should not be included in the stipulated six-month REASONING: According to FAR EAST, the employment contracts
period of probation. Honasan was accepted for on-the-job training were prepared in accordance with A80 LC, which provides Art. 80.
on April 15, 1991. Employment agreement.
Any employer who employs handicapped workers shall enter into
Assuming that her probation could be extended beyond that date, an employment agreement with them, which agreement shall
it nevertheless could continue only up to October 15, 1991, after include: (c) The duration of employment period; and;
the end of six months from the earlier date. Under this more
lenient approach, she had become a regular employee of Holiday FAR EAST entered into contract with a total of 56 handicapped
Inn and acquired full security of tenure as of October 15, 1991. workers and renewed the contracts of 37 of them. In fact, two of
them worked from 1988 to 1993. Verily, the renewal of the
The consequence is that she could no longer be summarily contracts of the handicapped workers and the hiring of others lead
separated on the ground invoked by the petitioners. As a regular to the conclusion that their tasks were beneficial and necessary to
employee, she had acquired the protection of Article 279 of the the bank. More important, these facts show that they were
Labor Code. qualified to perform the responsibilities of their positions. In other
words, their disability did not render them unqualified or unfit for
the tasks assigned to them.
Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that a qualified paid regular rank and file employees of MMPC. Nelson Paras was a
disabled employee should be given the same terms and conditions member of CPLU while wife, Cecille Paras, was the President of the
of employment as a qualified ablebodied person . Chrysler Philippines Salaried Employees Union (CPSU).
Since the Magna Carta accords them the rights of qualified able- 1. Nelson Paras was first employed by MMPC as a shuttle
bodied persons, they are thus covered by Article 280 of the Labor bus driver. He resigned and went to Saudi Arabia work. When he
Code. returned to the Philippines, he was rehired as a welder fabricator
The task of counting and sorting bills is necessary and desirable to at the MMPC. Sometime in May of 1996, Paras was re-hired on a
the business of respondent bank. With the exception of sixteen of probationary basis as a manufacturing trainee at the Plant
them, BERNARDO ET AL performed these tasks for more than six Engineering Maintenance Department.
months. 2. As part of the MMPCs policy, Paras was evaluated by his
As held by the Court, "Articles 280 and 281 of the Labor Code put immediate supervisors after 6 months, and received an average
an end to the pernicious practice of making permanent casuals of rating. They informed him that based on his performance rating,
our lowly employees by the simple expedient of extending to them he would be regularized. However, the Department and Division
probationary appointments, ad infinitum." Managers reviewed the performance evaluation made on Paras and
unanimously agreed, along with Paras immediate supervisors, that
The contract signed by petitioners is akin to a probationary the performance of Paras was unsatisfactory.
employment, during which the bank determined the employees' 3. As a consequence, Paras was not considered for
fitness for the job. regularization. On November 26, 1996, he received a Notice of
When the bank renewed the contract after the lapse of the six- Termination dated November 25, 1996, informing him that his
month probationary period, the employees thereby became regular services were terminated effective the said date since he failed to
employees. No employer is allowed to determine indefinitely the meet the required company standards for regularization.
fitness of its employees. 4. CPLU demanded the settlement of the dispute which
arose from Paras termination. They argued that Paras was
As regular employees, the 27 petitioners are entitled to security of dismissed on his 183rd day of employment, or 3 days after the
tenure; that is, their services may be terminated only for a just or expiration of the probationary period of 6 months. It was
authorized cause. contended that Paras was already a regular employee on the date
Therefore, when FAR EAST failed to show such cause, they are of the termination of his probationary employment.
deemed illegally dismissed and entitled to back wages and 5. According to CPLU and Paras, the latters dismissal was
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. an offshoot of the heated argument during the CBA negotiations
between MMPC Labor Relations Manager, Atty. Carlos S. Cao, on
Considering that the job of money sorting is no longer available the one hand, and Cecille Paras, the President of the Chrysler
because it has been assigned back to the tellers to whom it Philippines Salaried Employees Union (CPSU) and Paras wife, on
originally belonged, petitioners are hereby awarded separation pay the other.
in lieu of reinstatement. 6. According to the petitioner, when the termination letter
was served on November 26, 1996, Paras was still a probationary
MITSUBISHI MOTORS V. CHRYSLERLABOR UNION AND NEIL employee. Considering that he did not qualify for regularization,
PARAS 433 SCRA 206 (2004) DURATION/EXCEPTION his services were legally terminated.
FACTS: Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation (MMPC) is a
domestic corporation engaged in the assembly and distribution of ISSUE: W/N Paras is a regular employee
Mitsubishi motor vehicles.
Chrysler Philippines Labor Union (CPLU) is a legitimate labor
organization and the duly certified bargaining agent of the hourly-
HELD: ALCIRA vs NLRC
Yes, An employer, in the exercise of its management prerogative, FACTS: Alcira was hired by Middleby as an engineering support
may hire an employee on a probationary basis in order to services supervisor on a probationary basis for 6 months.
determine his fitness to perform work. Apparently unhappy with Alciras performance, the company
Under Art 281 Labor Code, the employer must inform the terminated Alciras services.
employee of the standards for which his employment may be
considered for regularization. The issue arises on whether the termination occurred before or
Such probationary period, unless covered by an apprenticeship after the 6-month probationary period. Both have different
agreement, shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the contentions as to the hiring dates:
employee started working. Alcira: May 20, 1996
Middleby: May 27, 1996
The employees services may be terminated for just cause or for
his failure to qualify as a regular employee based on reasonable Further, the appointment paper indicated that the status was
standards made known to him. probationary and that after 5 months, performance shall be
evaluated and any adjustment shall depend on work performance.
Respondent Paras was employed as a management trainee on a However, on November 20, 1996, Alcira was not allowed to work.
probationary basis. During the orientation conducted on May 15, Thereafter, Alcira filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter,
1996, he was apprised of the standards upon which his contending that he was already a regular employee as of the date
regularization would be based. he was dismissed.
He reported for work on May 27, 1996. As per the companys
policy, the probationary period was from three (3) months to a The company presented evidence that showed Alciras poor
maximum of six (6) months. performance, tardiness, absences, and violations of company rules
on wearing of uniform during the probationary period, and said
Applying Art 13 NCC, the probationary period of six (6) months that since he failed to meet the standards, Alciras application to
consists of one hundred eighty (180) days. This is in conformity become a regular employee was denied.
with paragraph one, Art 13 NCC, which provides that the months
which are not designated by their names shall be understood as LA, NLRC, and CA all ruled in favor of the company, upholding
consisting of thirty (30) days each. The number of months in the the validity of the dismissal.
probationary period, six (6), should then be multiplied by the
number of days within a month, thirty (30); hence, the period of ISSUES: 1. W/N petitioner was allowed to work beyond his
one hundred eighty (180) days. probationary period, and was therefore already a regular employee
at the time of his dismissal?
As clearly provided for in the last paragraph of Article 13, in 2. W/N Middleby informed petitioner of standards for regularization
computing a period, the first day shall be excluded and the last at the start of his employment?
day included. Thus, the one hundred eighty (180) days
commenced on May 27, 1996, and ended on November 23, 1996. 3. WON Alcira was illegally dismissed when Middleby opted not to
The termination letter dated November 25, 1996 was served on renew his contract on the last day of the probationary period?
respondent Paras only at 3:00 a.m. of November 26, 1996. He
was, by then, already a regular employee of the petitioner under HELD: DENIED
Article 281 of the Labor Code. 1. NO, The computation of the 6-month probationary period is
reckoned from the date of appointment up to the same calendar
CRITERIA: REGULARIZATION date of the 6th month following, thus dismissal on November 20,
1996 was well within the probationary period. The computation of the expiration of the probationary period. On that date, the parties
Alcira (using 30 days x 6 months = 180 days) is wrong. As held in are free to either renew or terminate their contract of employment.
CALS Poultry Supply Corp v Roco: Our computation of the 6-month
probationary period is reckoned from the date of appointment up In this case, Middleby exercised its option not to renew the
to the same calendar date of the 6th month following. In short, contract when it informed Alcira on the last day of his probationary
since the number of days in each particular month was irrelevant, employment that it did not intend to grant him a regular status.
Alcira was still a probationary employee when Middleby opted not
to "regularize" him on November 20, 1996. DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED. ART. 281. PROBATIONARY
EMPLOYMENT. Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6)
2. YES, Section 6 (d) of Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules of Book months from the date the employee started working, unless it is
VI of the Labor Code provides that: covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer
(d) In all cases of probationary employment, the employer period.
shall make known to the employee the standards under which he The services of an employee who has been engaged on a
will qualify as a regular employee at the time of his engagement. probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he
Where no standards are made known to the employee at that fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
time, he shall be deemed a regular employee. reasonable standards made known by the employer to the
employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is
An employer is deemed to substantially comply with the rule on allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a
notification of standards if he apprises the employee that he will be regular employee.
subjected to a performance evaluation on a particular date after
his hiring. MARIWASA MANUFACTURING INC VS LEOGARDO (1989)
Middleby substantially notified the petitioner of the standards of a FACTS: Dequila was hired on probation by Mariwasa as a general
regular employee when it apprised him, at the start of his utility worker on Jan.10, 1979.
employment, that it would evaluate his supervisory skills after 5 After the probationary period of six months, Mariwasa informed
months. him that his work had proved unsatisfactory and had failed to meet
The appointment paper contained the remark that Alcira would be the required standards and to give him a chance to improve his
subjected to a performance evaluation is enough notice that the performance and qualify for regular employment, instead of
probationary basis of his employment was conditional (conditioned dispensing with his service then and there, with his written consent
upon his meeting of performance tandards). Mariwasa extended his probation period for another three months
from July 10 to October 9, 1979.
3. NO, Although probationary employees are also accorded His performance, however, did not improve and on that account
security of tenure, this protection ends upon expiration of the Mariwasa terminated his employment at the end of the extended
probationary period. It is settled that even if probationary period.
employees do not enjoy permanent status, they are accorded the
constitutional protection of security of tenure. ISSUE: W/N employer and employee may by agreement extend
the probationary period of employment beyond the six months
This means they may only be terminated for just cause or when prescribed in Article 282 of the Labor Code.
they otherwise fail to qualify as regular employees in accordance
with reasonable standards made known to them by the employer :
at the time of their engagement. Yes, An extension of the probationary period of employment may
But we have also ruled in Manlimos, et. al. vs. National Labor lawfully be covenanted, notwithstanding the seemingly restrictive
Relations Commission that this constitutional protection ends on language of Article 282. Buiser vs. Leogardo, Jr . 7 recognized
agreements stipulating longer probationary periods as constituting Regional Office. The Regional Director ruled in COMPLAINANTS
lawful exceptions to the statutory prescription limiting such periods favor, which ruling was affirmed on appeal by the then Ministry of
to six months, when it upheld as valid an employment contract Labor and, subsequently, by the Office of the President.
between an employer and two of its employees that provided for
an eighteen - month probation period. ISSUE: 1. W/N the CSCI was denied due process due to the lack
of hearing before the Regional Director and COMPLAINANTS
Generally, the probationary period of employment is limited to six failure to file their respective position papers.
(6) months. The exception to this general rule is when the parties 2. W/N the COMPLAINANTS were merely casuals and could,
to an employment contract may agree otherwise, such as when therefore, be terminated even without prior clearance from the
the same is established by company policy or when the same is then Ministry of Labor and without entitlement to separation pay
required by the nature of work to be performed by the employee. 3. W/N the positions occupied by COMPLAINANTS with CCAS are
The extension of Dequila's probation was ex gratia, an act of identical with the positions already filled up and being discharged
liberality on the part of his employer affording him a second in the main office of CSCI, COMPLAINANTS may be terminated for
chance to make good after having initially failed to prove his worth redundancy
as an employee. HELD: 1. NO, The right to be heard, as a preliminary step
Such an act cannot now unjustly be turned against said employer's essential to the rendition of an enforceable judgment, constitutes a
account to compel it to keep on its payroll one who could not basic element of the constitutional requirement of due process of
perform according to its work standards. The law, surely, was law. However, while CSCI was not afforded an opportunity to be
never meant to produce such an inequitable result. By voluntarily heard by oral argument on its position paper due to its absence at
agreeing to an extension of the probationary period, Dequila in the scheduled hearing, it is likewise true that it was required to, as
effect waived any benefit attaching to the completion of said in fact it actually did, submit a position paper which, together with
period if he still failed to make the grade during the period of the evidence presented during the hearing, became the basis of
extension. the questioned order of the Regional Director.
From this order, CSCI appealed to the Labor Minister, and then to
ABSORBED EMPLOYEES the Office of the President. It is, therefore, apparent that CSCI was
CEBU STEVEDORING vs.REGIONAL DIRECTOR not denied adequate remedies from the alleged procedural
FACTS: Complainants Gelig and Quijano (COMPLAINANTS) were infirmities surrounding the Regional Director's order. The entire
former employees of the Cebu Customs Arrastre Service (CCAS). record of the case was reviewed and duly considered on appeal,
Pursuant to an Administrative Order by the Bureau of Customs, which appellate proceeding remedied any inadequacy in the
CCAS was abolished "for the reason that the objectives for which it procedural due process with which the trial proceedings are being
was created had already been attained". faulted.

Consequently, all the employees of CCAS, including 2. NO, We agree with the Regional Director that COMPLAINANTS
COMPLAINANTS, were given their termination separation pay by could not be considered probationary employees because they
the Bureau. were already well-trained in their respective functions. While
COMPLAINANTS were still with the CCAS they were already clerks
After the abolition, all the employees of CCAS, including with 10 years of service, on the average.
COMPLAINANTS, were absorbed by CSCI with the same positions They were, therefore, experienced workers. Findings of quasi-
that they held in the CCAS. judicial agencies (like the Labor Regional Office) which have
Almost 6 months later, however, COMPLAINANTS were dismissed acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific
by CSCI without prior clearance. COMPLAINANTS consequently matters are generally accorded not only respect but, at times,
filed an action for reinstatement with backwages with the Labor
even finality where such findings are supported by substantial 3. Moreno also claimed that during his employment, the
evidence. amount of P20.00 per month was deducted from his salary
3. NO, Despite Art. 283s provision on termination of employment allegedly for withholding tax, and the salary he was receiving was
due to redundancy and retrenchment, records fail to establish only P2,187.00 a month, which was way below the P2,410.17
clearly that the positions occupied by COMPLAINANTS are identical stipulated in the PADPAO memorandum of agreement.
with those presently existing in CSCI's office. CSCI also kept 4. On the other hand, petitioner, A Prime Security, alleged
COMPLAINANTS in its employ for almost 6 months without raising that the private respondent was hired on January 30, 1988, on a
this issue. CSCI does not mention which positions are allegedly probationary basis, and he signed an authority to deduct from his
duplicated by the positions held by COMPLAINANTS. salary any reimbursement for any loss or damage caused to
CSCI does not even explain why COMPLAINANTS should be the properties of the client; a. that he was given a copy of petitioners
ones to be terminated, without regard to the comparative lengths rules and regulations which provide that sleeping on post is
of service, qualifications and performance of all employees punishable by warning, suspension and dismissal and he was
concerned. caught sleeping on post on March 17, 1988, for which he was sent
a memorandum giving him a last warning; b. that on March 25,
CSCIs claim of financial losses is untenable since it appears that it 1988, he figured in a quarrel with another security guard, which
absorbed and employed for almost 6 months, without any resulted in a near shootout; c. that at the end of his probationary
intimation of supposed financial distress, the majority of the employment, he was given a psychological test and on the basis of
former employees of CCAS. It never advised COMPLAINANTS of a the foregoing, petitioner told him that his probationary
company retrenchment program; the first time this supposed employment had come to an end as he did not pass the company
program was mentioned was when CSCI was trying to justify the standard and therefore, he could not be hired as a regular
dismissal of COMPLAINANTS before the labor arbiter. CSCI employee.
presented a Statement of Operations, which, however, remains an
uncorroborated and self-serving piece of evidence. LA handed down a decision in favor of complainant. The
respondent was ordered to reinstate the complainant to his former
DOUBLE PROBATION: position and accord to him the status of a regular employee, and
A PRIME SECURITY SERVICE INC V. NLRC AND OTHELLO to refund to the complainant the deduction it had made from his
MORENO 322 SCRA 283 (2000) salary in the amount of P20.00 per month.
FACTS: Private respondent Othello Moreno worked as a security
guard for a year with Sugarland Security Services Inc, a sister NLRC affirmed the decision with a slight modification: the refund
company of petitioner. of the deductions made by respondent from complainants salaries
He was rehired as a security guard on January 30, 1988 by the in the amount of P20.00 per month was vacated and set aside.
petitioner and assigned to the same post at the U.S. Embassy
Building; that he was among those absorbed by the petitioner ISSUES: 1. W/N private respondents employment with A Prime
when it took over the security contracts of its sister company with Security Services, Inc. was just a continuation of his employment
the U.S. Embassy with Sugarland Security Services, Inc?
1. Private respondent Othello Moreno filed a complaint 2. W/N private respondent is a regular employee of petitioner?
against petitioner A Prime Security for illegal dismissal, illegal 3. W/N private respondents dismissal is illegal
deduction and underpayment of wages.
2. Moreno alleged that he was forced by petitioner to sign HELD:
new probationary contracts of employment for 6 months and 1. YES, On the issue as to whether the private respondent is a
further alleged that on August 1, 1988, his employment was probationary or regular employee, the Court holds that the latter
terminated. became a regular employee upon completion of his six-month
period of probation. Private respondent started working on January opportunity to be heard. The dismissal of private respondent was
30, 1988 and completed the said period of probation on July 27, presumably based on the results of his behavioral and
1988. Thus, at the time private respondent was dismissed on neuropsychological tests and on his violation of a company rule on
August 1, 1988, he was already a regular employee with a security sleeping on post. With respect to the behavioral and
of tenure. He could only be dismissed for a just and authorized neuropsychological tests, the Court agrees with NLRCs
cause. assessment:
There is no basis for subjecting private respondent to a new "Complainants result of his behavioral research and
probationary or temporary employment on January 30, 1988, neuropsychological test to our mind, is of no moment, considering
considering that he was already a regular employee when he was that the said test appeared to have been conveniently contrived to
absorbed by A' Prime from Sugarland, its sister company. be conducted, and the result produced on the very day of his
dismissal, in question. So also, private respondents alleged
The Court cannot sanction the practice of some companies which, violations of sleeping on post, and quarrelling with a co-worker,
shortly after a worker has become a regular employee, effects the may not be proper grounds for dismissal, as the same were first
transfer of the same employee to another entity whose owners are infractions.
the same, or identical, in order to deprive subject employee of the
benefits and protection he is entitled to under the law. The TERMINATION AND SALARY
allegations of the private respondent that Sugarland is a sister INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION vs
company of A Prime and that the latter absorbed the security NLRC (Termination and Salary)
contracts and security guards of Sugarland with the U.S. Embassy FACTS: Petitioner ICMC is a non-profit organization dedicated to
were neither denied nor controverted by the petitioner before the refugee service at the Philippine Refugee Processing Center in
Labor Arbiter. Morong, Bataan.
Petitioners failure to deny that Sugarland is its sister company and It engaged the services of private respondent Bernadette Galang
that petitioner absorbed Sugarlands security contract and security on January 1983 as a probationary cultural orientation teacher.
personnel assumes overriding significance over the resignation After 3 months, she was informed orally and in writing that her
theorized upon, evincing petitioners design to ignore or violate services were being terminated because she failed in the
labor laws through the use of the veil of corporate personality. performance evaluation of her supervisors during the teacher
evaluation program.
2. YES, The complainant became a regular employee upon
completion of his six-month period of probation. Private On August 1983, Galang filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
respondent started working on January 30, 1988 and completed unfair labor practice and unpaid wages against petitioner with the
the said period of probation on July 27, 1988. Thus, at the time then Ministry of Labor and Employment, praying for reinstatement
private respondent was dismissed on August 1, 1988, he was with backwages, exemplary and moral damages.
already a regular employee with a security of tenure. He could only
be dismissed for a just and authorized cause. There is no basis for On October 1983, Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for
subjecting private respondent to a new probationary or temporary illegal dismissal as well as the complaint for moral and exemplary
employment on January 30, 1988, considering that he was already damages but ordering the ICMC to pay Galang the sum of
a regular employee when he was absorbed by A Prime from P6,000.00 as payment for the last 3 months of the agreed
Sugarland, its sister company. employment period pursuant to her verbal contract of
employment.
3. YES, The dismissal of complainant, a regular employee, was Both parties appealed the decision to the NLRC.
without any just, legal and valid basis. What is more, he was not
given a chance to contest his dismissal. He was deprived of an
On August, the NLRC, by a majority vote of Commissioners There was no showing, as borne out by the records, that there was
Guillermo C. Medina and Gabriel M. Gatchalian, sustained the circumvention of the rights of private respondent when she was
decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed both appeals for informed of her termination. Her dismissal does not appear to us
lack of merit. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition. as arbitrary, fanciful or whimsical. Private respondent was duly
notified, orally and in writing, that her services as cultural
ISSUE: W/N an employee who was terminated during the orientation teacher were terminated for failure to meet the
probationary period of her employment is entitled to her salary for prescribed standards of petitioner as reflected in the performance
the unexpired portion of her six-month probationary employment evaluation conducted by her supervisors during the teacher
evaluating program.
HELD: The dissatisfaction of petitioner over the performance of private
NO, Galang was terminated during her probationary period of respondent is a legitimate exercise of its prerogative to select
employment for failure to qualify as a regular member of whom to hire or refuse employment for the success of its program
petitioners teaching staff in accordance with its reasonable or undertaking.
standards. Galang was found by petitioner to be deficient in
classroom management, teacher-student relationship and teaching It was thus a grave abuse of discretion on the part of public
techniques. Failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance respondent to order petitioner to pay private respondent her salary
with the reasonable standards of the employer is a just cause for for the unexpired three-month portion of her six-month
terminating a probationary employee specifically recognized under probationary employment when she was validly terminated during
Article 282 (now Article 281) of the Labor Code. The labor arbiters her probationary employment. To sanction such action would not
decision is erroneous. only be unjust, but oppressive on the part of the employer as
emphasized in Pampanga Bus Co., Inc., vs. Pambusco Employer
The award of salary for the unexpired portion of the probationary Union, Inc.
employment on the ground that a probationary employment for 6
months is an employment for a "definite period" which requires the DISPOSITION: The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of
employer to exhaust the entire probationary period to give the the NLRC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as it ordered
employee the opportunity to meet the required standards. We find petitioner to pay private respondent her P6,000.00 salary for the
unmeritorious public respondents argument that the security of unexpired portion of her six-month probationary employment. No
tenure of probationary employees within the period of their cost.
probation justified the award of salary for the unexpired portion of
her probationary employment. ORIENT EXPRESS PLACEMENT PHILIPPINES VS NLRC
FACTS: Antonio Flores was hired as crane operator with a monthly
The termination of private respondent predicated on a just cause salary of US$500 for 1year subject to a 3month probationary
negates the application in this case of the pronouncement in the period. After 1month and 5days, he was repatriated to the
case of Biboso vs. Victorias Milling Co., Inc., on the right of Philippines. He filed a complaint to POEA fro having been
security of tenure of probationary employees. Upon inquiry by the terminated for no valid reason.
then Ministry of Labor and Employment as a consequence of the His employers Orient Express and Nadrico (the foreign principal)
illegal dismissal case filed by private respondent before it, it was claimed that he was terminated for poor job performance as shown
found that there was no illegal dismissal involved in the case, in his performance evaluation sheet.
hence, the circumvention of the rights of the probationary
employees sought to be regulated as pointed out in Biboso vs. POEA decided in favor of Flores held that when the ground invoked
Victorias Milling Co., Inc., is wanting. for dismissal of an employee was incompetence or poor job
performance, it must be shown that the reasonable standards of
work prescribed by the employer were made known to the No other condition was laid out except that he was to be on
employee. The dismissal was unwarranted because the employers probation for three (3) months. As aforesaid, no standard
failed to point out the reasonable standards of work required. - whatsoever by which such probationary period could be hurdled
NLRC affirmed POEA decision on appeal. was specified and made known to him.

It also ruled that the designation of Flores as floorman instead of Due process dictates that an employee be apprised beforehand of
crane operator for which he was hired violated his employment the condition of his employment and of the terms of advancement
contract. Orient Express and Nadrico filed for MFR but it was therein. Precisely, implicit in Art. 281 of the Code is the
denied. requirement that reasonable standards be previously made known
by the employer to the probationary employee at the time of his
ISSUE: W/N private respondent was validly dismissed for poor job engagemen t, as correctly suggested by the POEA.
performance and uncooperative work attitude. Obviously, such an essential requirement was not met by
petitioner, even assuming that Flores' alleged unsatisfactory
HELD: performance was true. Besides, unsatisfactory performance is not
No, Flores was not validly dismissed. Under Art. 281 of the Labor one of the just causes for dismissal under the Labor Code.
Code, the services of an employee hired on a probationary basis
may be terminated when he fails to qualify as a regular employee DELA CRUZ VS. NLRC
in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the FACTS: On May 27, 1996, petitioner Florencio de la Cruz, Jr. was
employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. hired by private respondent Shemberg Marketing Corporation as
senior sales manager, a newly created position in line with the
Petitioner failed to specify the reasonable standards by which companys objective of product positioning in the consumer
private respondent's alleged poor performance was evaluated, market.
much less to prove that such standards were made known to him However, on Sept. 14, 1996, petitioner was informed that his
at the time of his recruitment in Manila. services were terminated. His request for a meeting with
Shembergs VP and to be furnished a 30-day written notice was
Neither private respondent's Agency-Worker Agreement9 with denied by management.
ORIENT EXPRESS nor his Employment Contract10 with NADRICO Hence, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal., non-
ever mentioned that he must first take and pass a Crane payment of salary, backwages, 13th month pay and damages.
Operators' License Examination in Saudi Arabia before he would be
allowed to even touch a crane. Private respondent answered that petitioners dismissal was
premised, among others, on his unauthorized reimbursement of
Neither did he know that he would be assigned as floorman the plane tickets of his wife and child, resulting to loss of trust and
pending release of the results of the examination or in the event confidence of the company.
that he failed; more importantly, that he would be subjected to a
performance evaluation by his superior one (1) month after his Labor arbiter ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed and
hiring to determine whether the company was amenable to granted his claim for separation pay, backwages and unpaid
continuing with his employment. wages.

Hence, respondent Flores could not be faulted for precisely Upon appeal, NLRC modified the decision, deleting the award
harboring the impression that he was hired as crane operator for a for separation pay and backwages. Hence, this petition.
definite period of one (1) year to commence upon his arrival at the
work-site and to terminate at the end of one (1) year.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner was legally dismissed, as he was a expiration of the 6-month probationary period, the employer was
probationary employee. well within his rights to sever the employer- employee relationship.
HELD:
YES, Petitioner was hired by Shemberg on May 27, 1996 and was
terminated on Sept. 14, 1996. A281 LC provides: A contrary interpretation would defect the clear meaning of the
Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the term probationary. In this case, Shemberg had good reason to
date the employee started working, unless it is covered in terminate petitioners employment. Petitioner was holding a
apprenticeship[ agreement stipulating a longer period. managerial position in which he was tasked to perform key
functions in accordance with an exacting work ethic.
The services of an employee who has been engaged on a
probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he His position required the full trust and confidence of his employer.
fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with While petitioner could exercise some discretion, this obviously did
reasonable standards, made known by the employer to the not cover acts for his own personal benefit. He committed a
employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is transgression which betrayed the trust and confidence of his
allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a employer reimbursing his familys personal travel expenses out
regular employee. of company funds.

The evidence on record clearly shows that petitioner was well RULE: PRIVATE SCOOL TEACHERS
informed of the standards to be met before he could qualify as a
regular employee. Attached to his appointment papers was a job CHIANG KAI SHEK COLLEGE V. CA AND DIANA BELO 437
description of sales manager. SCRA 171 (2004)
FACTS: In 1992, Ms. Diana Belo, a teacher of Chiang Kai Shek
A probationary employee is one who, for a given period of time, is College since 1977, applied for a leave of absence for the school
under observation or evaluation to determine whether or not he is year 1992-1993. Upon submitting her application, she was
qualified for permanent employment. informed of the school policy that if she takes a leave of absence,
she is not assured of a teaching load upon her return. She was
During the probationary period, the employer is given the likewise informed that only teachers in active service may enjoy
opportunity to observe the skill, competence and attitude of the the privilege and benefits provided by the school, such as free
employee while the latter seeks to prove to the employer that he tuition for the teachers children.
has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for
permanent employment. Ms. Belo, nonetheless, took her leave of absence. In May 1993,
she attempted to return to CKSC and signified her readiness to
The length of time is immaterial in determining the correlative teach for the coming school year.
rights of both the employer and the employee in dealing with each
other during this period. There is no dispute that petitioner, as a However, she was not allowed to return. Hence, she filed a
probationary employee enjoyed only a temporary employment complaint for illegal dismissal, among others, against CKSC.
status. This not having been attained in the mean time.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but the NLRC
The employer could well decide he no longer needed the disagreed.
probationary employees service or hi performance fell short of
expectation. As long as the termination was made before the The CA upheld the NLRCs ruling. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WON private respondent Belo enjoys security of tenure as tuition fee benefits only to children of teachers in service, Ms. Belo
a fulltime teacher? was clearly discriminated by them.

HELD: True, the policy was made known to Ms. Belo in a letter dated 9
Yes, It must be noted at the outset that Ms. Belo had been a full- June 1992, but, this only additionally and succinctly reinforced the
time teacher in petitioner CKSC continuously for fifteen years or clear case of discrimination.
since 1977 until she took a leave of absence for the school year
1992-1993. LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE, vs NLRC
FACTS: LCC initially employed Jose de la Pea III as a CAT
Under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, for a private Commandant and YCAP Coordinator for school year 1975-1976.
school teacher to acquire a permanent status of employment and, Prior to his resignation in 1980 and despite demands by LCC for
therefore, be entitled to a security of tenure, the following him to submit a syllabi in YDT I, II, III, and CAT I containing
requisites must concur: course objectives, subject matter, content, concepts, skills,
(a)the teacher is a full-time teacher; activities and evaluation not later than 11/12/1979, respondent de
(b)the teacher must have rendered three consecutive la Pea failed to comply.
years of service; and
(c)such service must have been satisfactory. Later, de la Pea applied to LCC again and for the positions of CAT
Commander and YDT Instructor, positions he held for 11 years
Since Ms. Belo has measured up to these standards, she therefore prior to his resignation from LCC.
enjoys security of tenure.
However, he was appointed as a classroom teacher in physical
The fundamental guarantees of security of tenure and due process education and health, a position he never held during his previous
dictate that no worker shall be dismissed except for just and employment with LCC.
authorized cause provided by law and after due notice and
hearing. The written contract of employment between LCC and respondent
de la Pea expressly provided that the employment was for 1
NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in finding that academic year, that is, from June 1992 to March 1993.
Ms. Belo was constructively dismissed when the petitioners, in Respondent de la Pea accepted such condition.
implementing their policies, effectively barred her from teaching
for the school year 1993-1994. On July 1992, petitioner Jose B. Bayoguing, Jr., a member of the
academic team tasked to evaluate the performance of the schools
The three policies are; teachers, reminded respondent de la Pea in writing to comply
(1)The non-assurance of a teaching load to a teacher who with the requirements and standard operating procedure of the
took a leave of absence; gnon applicability to children of teachers school, namely: timely submission of lesson plans, class records
on leave of the free tuition fee benefits extended to children of and other papers, attendance at regular monthly meetings, and
teachers in service. Case law defines constructive dismissal as a informing the school of absences.
cessation from work because continued employment is rendered However, de la Pea ignored the reminder without any valid
impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely; when there is a demotion in reason, and continued to defy these requirements and procedures.
rank or a diminution in pay or both; or when a clear discrimination,
insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the On November 1992, de la Pea called an emergency meeting of
employee. When in the school year 1992-1993, the petitioners faculty members and in said meeting, respondent de la Pea
already applied to Ms. Belos children the policy of extending free
berated petitioner Bayoguing, shouted invectives, ridiculed and for Private Schools, not the Labor Code, which is applicable. This
threatened Bayoguing with bodily harm. was settled in University of Sto. Tomas v. NLRC, where we ruled
that for a private school teacher to acquire permanent status in
On February 1993, respondent de la Pea petitioned for employment the following requisites must concur:
reinstatement as a faculty member for SY 1993-1994. However, it (1) the teacher is a full-time teacher;
was denied. Consequently, the academic team composed of (2) the teacher must have rendered 3 consecutive years of
informed respondent de la Pea of his unsatisfactory performance service; and
and advised him that the school would no longer hire him for the (3) such service must have been satisfactory
incoming school year.
A school year begins in June of one calendar year and ends in
On June 1993, respondent de la Pea filed a complaint against LCC March of the succeeding calendar year. The written contract of
for illegal dismissal, moral damages and exemplary damages. The respondent de la Pea stated that he shall be employed by the LCC
Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the complaint, holding for the school year June 1992, up to March 1993, a fixed term of
that at the time respondent de la Pea was dismissed, he had not ten months. It is also important to note that respondent de la
attained regular status. Pea was a new hire having previously resigned from the school
and was holding the position of classroom teacher for BED for the
The Labor Arbiter also found respondent de la Pea guilty of first time.
serious misconduct and gross disobedience which were just Respondent never denied the fact that he failed to comply with the
causes for termination of service. requirements of the school, hence, his employment was not
renewed.
On appeal to the NLRC, the NLRC rendered a resolution Neither did he attain permanent status. Clearly, respondent was
reversing the decision of the labor arbiter. The NLRC held that not illegally dismissed.
respondent de la Pea attained regular status at the time he was DISPOSITION. Petition is GRANTED. The Court REVERSES and
dismissed and that LCC failed to prove the existence of just cause sets aside the decision of the NLRC.
to warrant his dismissal.

LCC then filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision,


but the NLRC denied the motion.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: W/N respondent Jose de la Pea was a regular or


permanent employee of LCC?

HELD: GRANTED; SC reversed the NLRC decision


Having been issued in grave abuse of discretion. Respondent Jose
de la Pea did not attain permanent status. There is a written
contract defining the period of employment of respondent de la
Pea. Clearly, the employment was not permanent but for a
specified duration of one school year.

In resolving the issue of whether or not respondent de la Pea was


permanent employee of petitioner, it is the Manual of Regulations

You might also like