Labor Standards Case Digests Compiled - 8.01

8/11/2019 Labor Standards Case Digests Compiled - 8.01

1/47

8.01

INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION vs NLRC(Defnition o Probation)

FACTS:

Petitioner ICMC is a non-proft organization dedicated to reugee service at

the Philippine Reugee Processing Center in Morong, ataan!

It engaged the services o private respondent ernadette "alang on

#$%&$#' as a probationar* cultural orientation teacher!

+ter onths, she as inored orall* and in riting that her services ere

being terinated because she ailed in the perorance evaluation o her

supervisors during the teacher evaluation progra!

.n $%%$#', "alang fled a coplaint or illegal disissal, unair labor

practice and unpaid ages against petitioner ith the then Ministr* o /aborand 0plo*ent, pra*ing or reinstateent ith bac1ages, e2eplar* and

oral daages!

.n #3$$#', /abor +rbiter disissed the coplaint or illegal disissal as

ell as the coplaint or oral and e2eplar* daages but ordering the

ICMC to pa* "alang the su o P4,333!33 as pa*ent or the last onths

o the agreed eplo*ent period pursuant to her verbal contract o

eplo*ent!

oth parties appealed the decision to the 5/RC! .n $%%$#'6, the 5/RC, b* a

a7orit* vote o Coissioners "uillero C! Medina and "abriel M!

"atchalian, sustained the decision o the /abor +rbiter and disissed bothappeals or lac1 o erit! Dissatisfed, petitioner fled the instant petition!

ISSUE: 8hether or not an eplo*ee ho as terinated during the probationar*period o her eplo*ent is entitled to her salar* or the une2pired portion o

her si2-onth probationar* eplo*ent!

HELD:NO.

"alang as terinated during her probationar* period o eplo*ent forfailure to ualif! a" a re#ular $e$%er of &etitio'er(" tea)*i'# "ta+i' a))or,a')e -it* it" rea"o'a%le "ta',ar,"!

"alang as ound b* petitioner to be defcient in classroo anageent,

teacher-student relationship and teaching techni9ues! :ailure to 9uali* as a

regular eplo*ee in accordance ith the reasonable standards o the

eplo*er is a 7ust cause or terinating a probationar* eplo*ee specifcall*

recognized under +rticle %% (no +rticle %#) o the /abor Code!

;he labor arbiter


2/47

;he aard o salar* or the une2pired portion o the probationar*

eplo*ent on the ground that a probationar* eplo*ent or 4 onths is

an eplo*ent or a =defnite period= hich re9uires the eplo*er to

e2haust the entire probationar* period to give the eplo*ee the opportunit*

to eet the re9uired standards!

+ &ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!ee is one ho is on trial b* an eplo*er duringhich the eplo*er deterines hether or not he is 9ualifed or peranent

eplo*ent!

+ &ro%atio'ar! a&&oi't$e't is ade to a>ord the eplo*er anopportunit* to observe the ftness o a probationer hile at or1, and to

ascertain hether he ill becoe a proper and e?cient eplo*ee!

;he ord &ro%atio'ar!2as used to describe the period o eplo*ent,iplies the purpose o the ter or period, but not its length!

eing in the nature o a @trial periodA t*e e""e')e of a &ro%atio'ar!&erio, of e$&lo!$e't fu',a$e'tall! lie" i' t*e &ur&o"e or o%3e)ti4e

"ou#*t to %e attai'e, %! %ot* t*e e$&lo!er a', t*e e$&lo!ee duringsaid period!

;he length o tie is iaterial in deterining the correlative rights o both

in dealing ith each other during said period!

It is ithin the e2ercise o the right to select his eplo*ees that the eplo*er

a* set or f2 a probationar* period ithin hich the latter a* test and

observe the conduct o the orer beore hiring hi peranentl*!

+s the la no stands, +rticle %# o the /abor Code gives aple authorit* to

the eplo*er to terinate a probationar* eplo*ee or a 3u"t )au"e or-*e' *e fail" to ualif! a" a re#ular e$&lo!ee in accordance ith

reasonable standards ade 1non b* the eplo*er to the eplo*ee at thetie o his engageent!

5othing ould preclude the eplo*er ro e2tending a regular or a

peranent appointent to an eplo*ee once the eplo*er fnds that the

eplo*ee is 9ualifed or regular eplo*ent even beore the e2piration o

the probationar* period!

;here as no shoing, as borne out b* the records, that there as

circuvention o the rights o "alang hen she as inored o her

terination!

Ber disissal does not appear to us as arbitrar*, anciul or hisical! he

as dul* notifed, orall* and in riting, that her services ere terinated orailure to eet the prescribed standards o petitioner as reected in the

perorance evaluation conducted b* her supervisors during the teacher

evaluating progra!

;he dissatisaction o petitioner over the perorance o private respondent

in this regard is a le#iti$ate e5er)i"e of it" &rero#ati4e to "ele)t -*o$

Page 6o /


3/47

to *ire or refu"e e$&lo!$e't for t*e "u))e"" of it" &ro#ra$ oru',erta7i'#.

;he loer court abused its discretion hen it ordered ICMC to "alang her

salar* or the une2pired three-onth portion o her si2-onth probationar*

eplo*ent hen she as validl* terinated during her probationar*

eplo*ent! To "a')tio' "u)* a)tio' -oul, 'ot o'l! %e u'3u"t %ut o&&re""i4e o'

t*e &art of t*e e$&lo!er.

DISOSITION: ;he petition is GRANTED! ;he Resolution o the 5/RC isRE9ERSED and SET ASIDE insoar as it ordered petitioner to pa* privaterespondent her P4,333!33 salar* or the une2pired portion o her si2-onth

probationar* eplo*ent! 5o cost!

*il. Fe,eratio' of Cre,it Coo&erati4e" I') 4" NLRC 1;;8e, for&er$a'e't e$&lo!$e't.

A &ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!$e't i" $a,e to a+or, t*e e$&lo!er a'o&&ortu'it! to o%"er4e t*e >t'e"" of a &ro%atio'er -*ile at -or7a', to a")ertai' -*et*er *e -ill %e)o$e a &ro&er a', e?)ie'te$&lo!ee.2

ESINA 9". CA

FACTS:

M!K! an 8or1er


5/47

Respondent Monde alleged that petitioners had no cause o action against it,

stating thusF

T*e "u&er4i"or" of Mo',e )o',u)te, a' e4aluatio' of t*e&erfor$a')e of all it" &ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!ee" i')lu,i'#

*erei' )o$&lai'a't". Out of t*e 11@ &ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!ee"o'l! / e$&lo!ee" uali>e, for re#ular e$&lo!$e't.

For t*o"e -*o ,i, 'ot ualif! for re#ular e$&lo!$e'ti')lu,i'# &etitio'er" re"&o',e't Mo',e #a4e t*e re$ai',erof t*eir &ro%atio'ar! &erio, to &ro4e t*eir uali>)atio' forre#ular e$&lo!$e't t*ere-it* %ut &etitio'er" eit*er: a5 &ro%atio'ar! &erio, ithin hich

Page ;o /


10/47

the latter a* test and observed the conduct o the orer beore hiring hi

peranentl*! =;he right o the laborer to sell his labor to such persons as he a*

choose is, in its essence, the sae as the right o an eplo*er to purchased labor

ro an* person ho it chooses! ;he eplo*er and the eplo*ee have thus an

e9ualit* o rights guaranteed b* the Constitution!

DISOSITION: .rder o the Deput* Minister o /abor is R0E0R0D and 0; +ID0!5o costs! P0;I;I.5 "R+5;0D!

I'ter'atio'al Cat*oli) Mi#ratio' Co$$i""io' 4" NLRC 1;8;e, for re#ular e$&lo!$e't e4e' %eforet*e e5&iratio' of t*e &ro%atio'ar! &erio,.

;here as no shoing, as borne out b* the records, that there as

circuvention o the rights o "alang hen she as inored o her

terination!

Ber disissal does not appear to us as arbitrar*, anciul or hisical!

Page 6o /


25/47

he as dul* notifed, orall* and in riting, that her services ere terinated

or ailure to eet the prescribed standards o petitioner as reected in the

perorance evaluation conducted b* her supervisors during the teacher

evaluating progra!

;he dissatisaction o petitioner over the perorance o private respondent

in this regard is a legitiate e2ercise o its prerogative to select ho to hireor reuse eplo*ent or the success o its progra or underta1ing!

;he loer court abused its discretion hen it ordered ICMC to "alang her

salar* or the une2pired three-onth portion o her si2-onth probationar*

eplo*ent hen she as validl* terinated during her probationar*

eplo*ent!

To "a')tio' "u)* a)tio' -oul, 'ot o'l! %e u'3u"t %ut o&&re""i4e o't*e &art of t*e e$&lo!er.

DISOSITION: ;he petition is GRANTED! ;he Resolution o the 5/RC is

RE9ERSED and SET ASIDE insoar as it ordered petitioner to pa* privaterespondent her P4,333!33 salar* or the une2pired portion o her si2-onth

probationar* eplo*ent! 5o cost!

Holi,a! I'' Ma'ila 4" NLRC

Fa)t":

0lena Bonasan applied or eplo*ent ith the Bolida* Inn and as on +pril

#6, #''#, accepted or =on-the-7ob training= as a telephone operator or a

period o three ee1s!

:or her services, she received ood and transportation alloance!

.n Ma* #, #''%, ater copleting her training, she as eplo*ed on a

=probationar* basis= or a period o si2 onths ending 5oveber #%, #''#!

Ber eplo*ent contract stipulated that the Botel could terinate her

probationar* eplo*ent at an* tie prior to the e2piration o the si2-onth

period in the event o her ailure (a) to learn or progress in her 7obQ (b) toaithull* observe and copl* ith the hotel rules and the instructions and

orders o her superiorsQ or (c) to peror her duties according to hotel

standards!

Page 6Bo /


26/47

.n 5oveber , #''#, our da*s beore the e2piration o the stipulated

deadline, Bolida* Inn notifed her o her disissal, on the ground that her

perorance had not coe up to the standards o the Botel!

Bonasan fled a coplaint or illegal disissal, claiing that she as alread*

a regular eplo*ee at the tie o her separation and so as entitled to ullsecurit* o tenure!

I""ue: Bonasan as alread* a regular eplo*ee at the tie o her disissal, hichas ade & da*s da*s beore the e2piration o the probation period!

Hel,:

8e fnd in the Botels s*ste o double probation a transparent schee to

circuvent the plain andate o the la and a1e it easier or it to disiss

its eplo*ees even ater the* shall have alread* passed probation! ;he petitioners had aple tie to suaril* terinate Bonasans services

during her period o probation i the* ere deeed unsatisactor*!

;he eplo*er has absolute discretion in hiring his eplo*ees in accordance

ith his standards o copetence and probit*!

;his is his prerogative!

.nce hired, hoever, the eplo*ees are entitled to the protection o the la

even during the probation period and ore so ater the* have becoe

ebers o the regular orce!

;he eplo*er does not have the sae reedo in the hiring o his eplo*ees

as in their disissal! Ho'a"a' -a" &la)e, %! t*e &etitio'er o' &ro%atio' t-i)e >r"t

,uri'# *er o't*e3o% trai'i'# for t*ree -ee7" a', 'e5t ,uri'#a'ot*er &erio, of "i5 $o't*" o"te'"i%l! i' a))or,a')e -it* Arti)le681. Her &ro%atio' )learl! e5)ee,e, t*e &erio, of "i5 $o't*"&re")ri%e, %! t*i" arti)le.

Probation is the period during hich the eplo*er a* deterine i the

eplo*ee is 9ualifed or possible inclusion in the regular orce! In the case at

bar, the period as or three ee1s, during Bonasans on-the-7ob training!

8hen her services ere continued ater this training, the petitioners in e>ect

recognized that she had passed probation and as 9ualifed to be a regulareplo*ee!

Bonasan as certainl* under observation during her three-ee1 on-the-7ob

training!

I her services proved unsatisactor* then, she could have been dropped as

earl* as during that period!

ut she as not!

Page 6@o /


27/47

.n the contrar*, her services ere continued, presuabl* because the* ere

acceptable, although she as orall* placed this tie on probation!

0ven i it be supposed that the probation did not end ith the three-ee1

period o on-the-7ob training, there is still no reason h* that period should

not be included in the stipulated si2-onth period o probation!

Bonasan as accepted or on-the-7ob training on +pril #6, #''#!

+ssuing that her probation could be e2tended be*ond that date, it

nevertheless could continue onl* up to .ctober #6, #''#, ater the end o si2

onths ro the earlier date!

Gnder this ore lenient approach, she had becoe a regular eplo*ee o

Bolida* Inn and ac9uired ull securit* o tenure as o .ctober #6, #''#!

;he conse9uence is that she could no longer be suaril* separated on the

ground invo1ed b* the petitioners!

+s a regular eplo*ee, she had ac9uired the protection o +rticle %H' o the

/abor Code!

ERNARDO 9 NLRC FAR EAST ANK AND TRUST COMAN'itu$ .

T*e )o'tra)t "i#'e, %! &etitio'er" i" a7i' to a &ro%atio'ar!e$&lo!$e't ,uri'# -*i)* t*e %a'7 ,eter$i'e, t*e e$&lo!ee"J>t'e"" for t*e 3o%.

*e' t*e %a'7 re'e-e, t*e )o'tra)t after t*e la&"e of t*e "i5$o't* &ro%atio'ar! &erio, t*e e$&lo!ee" t*ere%! %e)a$e re#ulare$&lo!ee".

No e$&lo!er i" allo-e, to ,eter$i'e i',e>'itel! t*e >t'e"" of it"e$&lo!ee".

+s regular eplo*ees, the %H petitioners are entitled to securit* o tenureQ

that is, their services a* be terinated onl* or a 7ust or authorized cause!

Page 68o /


29/47

;hereore, hen :+R 0+; ailed to sho such cause, the* are deeed

illegall* disissed and entitled to bac1 ages and reinstateent ithout loss

o seniorit* rights and other privileges!

Considering that the 7ob o one* sorting is no longer available because it

has been assigned bac1 to the tellers to ho it originall* belonged,

petitioners are hereb* aarded separation pa* in lieu o reinstateent!

MITSUISHI MOTORS 9. CHRSLERLAOR UNION AND NEIL ARAS ==SCRA 60@ 600e, a', $a,e 7'o-' to *i$! Due process dictates that an eplo*ee be apprised beorehand o the

condition o his eplo*ent and o the ters o advanceent therein!

Precisel*, i$&li)it i' Art. 681 of t*e Co,e i" t*e reuire$e't t*atrea"o'a%le "ta',ar," %e &re4iou"l! $a,e 7'o-' %! t*e e$&lo!er tot*e &ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!ee at t*e ti$e of *i" e'#a#e$e't, as correctl*suggested b* the P.0+!

.bviousl*, such an essential re9uireent as not et b* petitioner, even

assuing that :lores alleged unsatisactor* perorance as true! esides,u'"ati"fa)tor! &erfor$a')e i" 'ot o'e of t*e 3u"t )au"e" for,i"$i""al u',er t*e La%or Co,e.

Dela Cru 4". NLRC

Fa)t":

.n Ma* %H, #''4, petitioner :lorencio de la Cruz, Jr! as hired b* private

respondent heberg Mar1eting Corporation as senior sales anager, a

nel* created position in line ith the copan*


42/47

Private respondent ansered that petitioner


43/47

;here is no dispute that petitioner, as a probationar* eplo*ee en7o*ed onl*

a teporar* eplo*ent status!

;his not having been attained in the ean tie!

;he eplo*er could ell decide he no longer needed the probationar*eplo*ee


44/47

Boever, she as not alloed to return! Bence, she fled a coplaint or

illegal disissal, aong others, against CXC!

;he /abor +rbiter disissed the coplaint but the 5/RC disagreed! ;he Court

o +ppeals upheld the 5/RCectivel* barred her ro teaching or the school *ear #''-#''&!

;he three policies are (#) the non-assurance o a teaching load to a teacher

ho too1 a leave o absenceQ (%) the hiring o non-peranent teachers in

+pril to ho teaching loads ere alread* assigned hen Ms! elo signifed

in Ma* #'' her intention to teachQ and () the non-applicabilit* to children o

teachers on leave o the ree tuition ee benefts e2tended to children o

teachers in service! Case la defnes constructive disissal as a cessation ro or1 because

continued eplo*ent is rendered ipossible, unreasonable, or unli1el*Q

hen there is a deotion in ran1 or a diinution in pa* or bothQ or hen a

clear discriination, insensibilit*, or disdain b* an eplo*er becoes

unbearable to the eplo*ee!

Page o /


45/47

8hen in the school *ear #''%-#'', the petitioners alread* applied to Ms!

elo


46/47

Boever, it as denied! Conse9uentl*, the acadeic tea coposed o

inored respondent de la PeYa o his unsatisactor* perorance and

advised hi that the school ould no longer hire hi or the incoing school

*ear!

.n 4$'$#'', respondent de la PeYa fled a coplaint against /CC or illegal

disissal, oral daages and e2eplar* daages! ;he /abor +rbiter rendered a decision disissing the coplaint, holding that

at the tie respondent de la PeYa as disissed, he had not attained regular

status!

o ;he /abor +rbiter also ound respondent de la PeYa guilt* o serious

isconduct and gross disobedience hich ere 7ust causes or

terination o service!

.n appeal to the 5/RC, the 5/RC rendered a resolution reversing the decision

o the labor arbiter!

o ;he 5/RC held that respondent de la PeYa attained regular status at

the tie he as disissed and that /CC ailed to prove the e2istenceo 7ust cause to arrant his disissal!

/CC then fled a otion or reconsideration o the 5/RC decision, but the

5/RC denied the otion! Bence, this petition!

ISSUE: 8hether respondent Jose de la PeYa as a regular or peranent eplo*eeo /CC!

HELD:

8e reverse the 5/RC decision having been issued in grave abuse odiscretion!

Respondent Jose de la PeYa did not attain peranent status!

;here is a ritten contract defning the period o eplo*ent o respondent

de la PeYa!

Clearl*, the eplo*ent as not peranent but or a specifed duration o

one school *ear!

In resolving the issue o hether or not respondent de la PeYa as

peranent eplo*ee o petitioner, it is the Manual o Regulations or Private

chools, not the /abor Code, hich is applicable!

;his as settled in 3niversity o+ Sto" &omas v" #LC, here e ruled that fora &ri4ate ")*ool tea)*er to a)uire &er$a'e't "tatu" i' e$&lo!$e'tt*e follo-i'# reui"ite" $u"t )o')urF

(#) the teacher is a ull-tie teacherQ

(%) the teacher ust have rendered consecutive *ears o serviceQ and

Page @o /


47/47

() such service ust have been satisactor*!

+ school *ear begins in June o one calendar *ear and ends in March o the

succeeding calendar *ear!

;he ritten contract o respondent de la PeYa stated that he shall beeplo*ed b* the /CC or the school *ear June #''%, up to March #'', a

f2ed ter o ten onths!

It is also iportant to note that respondent de la PeYa as a ne hire having

previousl* resigned ro the school and as holding the position o

classroo teacher or 0D or the frst tie!

Respondent never denied the act that he ailed to copl* ith the

re9uireents o the school, hence, his eplo*ent as not reneed!

5either did he attain peranent status!

Clearl*, respondent as not illegall* disissed!

DISOSITION. Petition is "R+5;0D! ;he Court R0E0R0 and sets aside thedecision o the 5/RC!

Documents

Labor Standards Case Digests Compiled - 8.01