Course: LABOR 2
Week/s: 1 and 2
LABOR CODE PROVISIONS:
Article (279) 294: SECURITY OF TENURE. In cases of regular employment,
the employer shall NOT terminate the services of an employee, EXCEPT for a
just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work SHALL be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed
from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his
actual reinstatement.
Article (281)295: REGULAR AND CASUAL EMPLOYMENT. The provisions
of written agreements to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the
oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular
where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer,
EXCEPT where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the
time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the
season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it’s not covered by the
preceding paragraph. Provided, that, the employee who has rendered at least
one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered as a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is
employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.
EXCEPTIONS TO REGULAR AND CASUAL EMPLOYMENT (Art.
295) (EUTW)
1. Employment has been fixed for a specific project
2. Undertaking the completion
3. Termination of which has been determined at the time of
the engagement of the employee
4. Work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature,
and employment is for the duration of the season
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code
PLATERO
BOOK VI (Post Employment)
TITLE I Termination of Employment
Rule 1, Section 6 (WWTI)
SECTION 6. Probationary employment. — (a) Where the work for
which an employee has been engaged is learnable or apprenticeable
in accordance with the standards prescribed by the Department of
Labor, the probationary employment period of the employee shall be
limited to the authorized learnership or apprenticeship period,
whichever is applicable.
(b) Where the work is neither learnable nor apprenticeable, the
probationary employment period shall not exceed six (6) months
reckoned from the date the employee actually started working.
(c) The services of an employee who has been engaged on
probationary basis may be terminated only for a just cause or when
authorized by existing laws, or when he fails to qualify as a regular
employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the
employer.
(d) In all cases involving employees engaged on probationary basis,
the employer shall make known to the employee the standards under
which he will qualify as a regular employee at the time of his
engagement.
NOTES:
According to IRR, BOOK II, RULE 1, SEC. 2
1. Apprenticeship: Training on the job supplemented by related
theoretical instructions involving apprenticeable occupation and
trades as may be approved by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment.
2. Apprentice: A worker who is covered by a written apprenticeship
with an employer.
3. Apprenticeship agreement: Written employment contract
wherein the employer binds himself TO TRAIN the apprentice and
the latter in turn AGREES to work for the employer.
4. Apprenticeable occupation: any trade, form of employment or
occupation approved for apprenticeship by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment, which requires for proficiency more than three
months of practical training on the job supplemented by related
theoretical instructions.
According to IRR, BOOK II, RULE 7, SEC. 2
5. Learner: a person hired as a trainee in industrial occupations
which are non-apprenticeable and which may be learned through
practical training on the job for a period not exceeding three (3)
months, whether or not such practical training is supplemented by
theoretical instructions
6. Learnership agreement: employment and training contract
entered into between the employer and the learner.
7. When learners may be employed. — Learners may be
employed when no experienced workers are available, the
employment of learners being necessary to prevent curtailment of
employment opportunities, and such employment will not create
unfair competition in terms of labor costs nor impair working
standards.
Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993
1. Coverage:
a. All operations and undertakings in the construction industry
and its subdivisions. (GGS-CdF)
 General Building Construction
 General Engineering Construction
 Special Trade Construction (based on the
classification Code of the Philippine Construction
Accreditation Board of the Construction Industry
Authority of the Philippines)
 Companies and entities involved in demotion
works
 Falling within the construction industry as
determined by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment
2. Employment Status:
a. Project Employees: employed in connection with a particular
construction project or phase thereof AND whose employment
is co-terminus with each project of phase of the project to
which they are assigned.
b. Non-project Employees: employed without reference to any
particular construction project or phase of a project.
PLATERO
c. Indicators of Project Employees: either 1 or more of the ff
circumstances, among others, may be considered as
indicators
 Duration of the specific/identified undertaking
for which the worker is engaged
 Such duration, as well as, specific work/service to
be performed (defined in an employment
agreement, and is made clear at the time of hiring)
 Work or service of the employee has a connection
with the particular project/undertaking for which
he is engaged.
 The employee, while not employed or awaiting
engagement, is free to offer his services to any
other employer
 Termination of his employment in the particular
project/undertaking is reported to DOLE Regional
Office having jurisdiction over the workplace within
30 days ff the date of his separation from work,
using the prescribes form on employee’s
termination/dismissals/suspensions.

An undertaking in the employment contract by the
employer to pay completion bonus to the project
employee as practiced by most construction
companies.
d. Project Completion and rehiring of workers:
 Employees of a particular project are not
separated from work at the same time.
 Completion of a phase is considered completion of
the project for an employee employed in such
phase.
 Those employed in a particular phase of a project
are also not separated at the same time.
 Upon completion of a project or a phase, the
employee may be rehired for another undertaking
PROVIDED, however, that such rehiring conforms
with the provisions of the law and this issuance. In
such case, the last day of service with the
employer in the preceding projects SHOULD be
indicated in the employment agreement.
e. Types of Non-project employees:
 Probationary Employees: upon the completion
of the probationary period, are entitled to
regularization. Upon their engagement, employees
should be informed of the reasonable standards
under which they will qualify as a regular
employee.
 Regular Employees: appointed or have
completed the probationary period, or those
appointed to fill up regular positions vacate as
a
result
of
DEATH,
RETIREMENT,
RESIGNATION OR TERMINATION of the
employment of the regular employees.
 Casual Employees: employed to perform work not
related to the main line of business of the employer.
Employed for at least a year, whether
continuous or broken, shall be considered
regular, with respect to the activity in which
they’re employed. Employment shall continue as
long as the activity exists UNLESS the
employment has been terminated due to just or
authorized causes or voluntarily by the
employee.
 Contracting and Subcontracting: the practice of
contracting our certain phases of a construction
project is recognized by law, particularly wage
legislations and wage orders, and by industry
practices…Where such job contracting is
permissible, the construction workers are generally
considered as employees of the contractor or subcontractor, as the case may be, subject to Article
109 of the Labor Code, as amended.
 Article 9: Solidary Liability. The provisions
of existing laws to contrary notwithstanding,
every employer or indirect employer shall be
held responsible with his contractor or
subcontractor for any violation of any
provision of this Code. For the purposes of
determining the extent of their civil liability
under this Chapter, they shall be considered
as direct employers.
PLATERO
3. Conditions of Employment
a. Security of Tenure:
 Project Employees who have become regular shall
enjoy security of tenure in their employment as
provided under Article 280 of LC. WHERE THEIR
SERVICES
ARE
TERMINATED
FOR
A
CAUSE/CAUSES, THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO
SEPARATION PAY. Just Causes, Article 282 of LC;
Authorized Cause, Article 283 LC, EMPLOYEES
WILL BE ENTITLED TO SEPARATION PAY.
 Article 282 (Just Causes), 283-284
(Authorized Causes) of LC
a. Just causes of termination refer to
serious
misconduct,
willful
disobedience or insubordination,
gross and habitual neglect of duties,
fraud or wilful breach of trust, loss of
confidence, commission of a crime or
offense, and analogous causes. The
Rules expressly provides that for
acts or omissions to be considered
as analogous causes, the same must
be expressly specified in company
rules and regulations or policies.
b. Authorized causes of termination
refer to installation of labor-saving
devices, redundancy, retrenchment
or downsizing, closure or cessation
of operation, and disease.
b. Project Employees who are not entitled to Separation
Pay.
 Project Employees in Par. 2.1 hereof, are not
entitled to Separation Pay IF THEIR SERVICES
ARE TERMINATED AS A RESULT OF THE
COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT OR ANY
PHASE THEREOF IN WHICH THEY ARE
EMPLOYED. Likewise, Project Employees whose
services are terminated because they have no more
work to do or their services are no longer needed in
the particular phase of the project, are NOT BY
LAW ENTITLED TO SEPARATION PAY.
c. Project Employees who ARE ENTITLED to Separation
Pay.
 Project employees whose AGGREGATE PERIOD
OF
CONTINUOUS
EMPLOYMENT
in
a
construction company is AT LEAST ONE YEAR
SHALL BE DEEMED REGULAR EMPLOYEES, in
the absence of a “day certain” agreed upon by
the parties for the termination of their
relationship. PROJECT EMPLOYEES WHO
HAVE BECOME REGULAR SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO SEPARATION PAY.
 “DAY” – which must necessarily come, although it
may not be known exactly when; The final
completion of a project of phase thereof IS IN FACT
DETERMINABLE and EXPECTED COMPLETION
IS MADE KNOWN to the employee, such project
employee MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED
REGULAR, notwithstanding the one-year duration
of employment in the project or phase thereof of the
one-year duration of two or more employments in
the same project or phase of the project.
 Completion of the project or any phase thereof in
determined on the date originally agreed upon or
the date indicated in the contract or, if the same is
extended, the date of termination of project
extension.
 Termination of the employee without just or
authorized cause DURING the duration of the
project/phase. If the project or the phase of the
project of the employee is working on has not yet
been completed and his services are terminated
without just cause or authorize cause, AND THERE
IS NO SHOWING THAT HIS SERVICES ARE
UNSATISFACTORY, the project employee is
entitled to the reinstatement WITH backwages to
his former position or substantially equivalent
position. If the reinstatement is no longer possible,
the employee is entitled to his salaries for the
unexpired portion of the agreement.
PLATERO
d. Completion of the project:
 Project employees who are separated from work as
a result of the completion of the project, or any
phase thereof in which they are employed are
entitled to the pro-rata completion bonus if there is
an undertaking for the grant of such bonus. An
undertaking by the employer to pay a completion
bonus shall be an INDICATOR THAT AN
EMPLOYEE IS A PROJECT EMPLOYEE. The prorata completion bonus may be based on the
industry practice which is at least the employee’s
one-half month salary for every 12 months service
and may be put into effect for any project big (in
case of bid projects) tender submitted (in case of
negotiated projects) thirty (30) days from the date
of issuance of the Guidelines.
e. Statutory Benefits
 During the duration of their employment, the
construction employees whether project or nonproject shall enjoy all the benefits due them under
the law, both monetary and non-monetary.
f. Payment by results
 Where the payment for work or services rendered
is by results, e.g., piece rate or “pakiao”, the rate
shall be determined on the basis of not less than
the minimum wage applicable in the region where
the construction project is located. The minimum
wage rates of workers who are paid by results may
be determined by the appropriate DOLE Regional
Office on its initiative or upon request of interested
parties.
4. Preventive Suspension
a. Subject to Article 277 (b) of the LC, project and non-project
employees may be preventively suspended if their continued
employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or
property of the employer or of their co-workers. No
preventive suspension, however, shall last longer than 15
days. The Employer shall thereafter reinstate the worker in
his former or in a substantially equivalent position, or the
employer may extend the period of suspension provided that
during the period of extension, he pays the wages and other
benefits due to the worker. The employer shall designate a
day, time, and place within the period of preventive
suspension, with notice to the employee, to hold a fact-finding
investigation, to enable the suspended employee to be heard
and to be assisted by his counsel or representative, if he so
desires, of the charge against him and thereby exonerate the
employee, or upon the employee’s failure to vindicate himself,
to find the employee guilty and thereby, to terminate his
employment. Such termination shall not prejudice the
right of the employee to question the severance of the
relationship in the appropriate forum.
5. Self-Organization and Collective Baragaining
a. In recognition of the right of employees to self-organizations
and collective bargaining, this Department hereby
encourages the formation of “trade” union in the
construction industry, PROVIDED THAT, the formation or
activities of a recognized trade union WILL NOT
PREJUDICE EXISTING BARGAINING UNITS, subject to
existing laws. …Trade unions refer to a combination of
workers of the same trade, or of several allied trades, for the
purpose of securing by united action the most favorable
conditions regarding wages, hours of labor and other terms
and conditions of employment for its members.
6. Liabilities/Responsibilities of the Employer and the Workers
a. Requirements of Labor and Social Legislations:
 Construction company and the general contractor
and/or subcontractor referred to in Sec 2.5 SHALL
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WORKERS IN ITS
EMPLOY on matters of compliance with the
requirements of existing laws and regulations on
hours of work, wages, wage-related benefits,
health, safety, and social welfare benefits, including
submission to the DOLE-Regional Office of Work
Accident/Illness Report, Monthly Report on
Employee’ Terminations/Dismissals/Suspensions
and other reports. The prime/general contractor
SHALL EXERCISE sound judgment and discretion
PLATERO
in contracting our projects to ensure compliance
with labor standards.
 Project and Non-project employees shall observe
the requirements of labor and social legislation and
reasonable company rules and regulations on
matters pertaining to their obligations.
b. Implementation of Safety and Health Standards:
 The Department through the Regional Offices shall
STRICTLY enforce the Occupational Safety and
Health Standards, as amended, particularly Rule
1005 on Duties of Employers, Workers and Other
Persons and Rule 1410 on Construction Safety.
Through the Bureau of Working Conditions, the
Department may issue a code of practice on
Occupational Safety and Health for the construction
industry.
c. Wage Increases:
 Whether mandated or agreed upon by the parties,
the PRESCRIBED INCREASE IN THE WAGE
RATES OF THE WORKERS IN CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE
PRINCIPALS
OR
CLIENTS
OF
THE
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS AND THE
CONTRACTS SHALL BE DEEMED AMENDED
ACCORDINGLY. The wage rates of project
employees shall depend on the skills or level of
competence of such project employees as
determined by NYMC Trade and Standards
subscribed to by the Philippine Construction
Industry under the Five Year Construction
Manpower Development Plan dated November
1991, PROVIDED THAT the rates established
shall
NOT
BE
LOWER
THAN
THAT
PRESCRIBED by the appropriate wage order
and regulations. The liability in subsequent
mandated grants of wage increases and/or
allowances to construction workers SHALL BE
DETERMINED in accordance with the provisions of
the applicable wage legislation or orders.
PLATERO
CASE DIGEST:
DE LEON VS NLRC
GR NO. 70705, August 21, 1989
NLRC RULING:
The Commission reversed the LA’s Decision and denied the motion for
reconsideration of the petitioner.
FACTS:
Petitioner, Moises De Leon, was employed by the Private Respondent, La Todena
Inc., at the maintenance section of its Engineering Department in Tondo, Manila.
His work consisted mainly of painting company building and equipment, and other
odd jobs relating to maintenance. He was paid on a daily basis through petty cash
vouchers.
After a year of service, On January 1983, the petitioner asked the respondent
company that he be included in the payroll of the regular workers, instead of being
paid through cash vouchers. The respondent refused the request of the petitioner
and eventually dismissed the latter from his employment. Hence the petitioner filed
a complaint for Illegal Dismissal, reinstatement and payment of backwages before
the Office of the Labor Arbiter.
Petitioner alleged that he was dismissed following his request to be a regular
employee of the respondent. He maintained that his work consisted not only
painting of buildings, but also maintenance chores like cleaning and operating
company equipment, assisting a regular maintenance man named Emiliano
Tanque Jr. Petitioner was indirectly rehired through Vitas-Magsaysay Village
Livelihood Council, the labor agency of the respondent company, and was made
to performs his tasks prior to his dismissal. Emilio, corroborated the averments of
the petitioner through an affidavit.
The private respondent claimed that the Petitioner was only a casual employee
and not a regular employee since he was hired allegedly to paint a particular
building on the premises of the company and that his work was terminated upon
the completion of his job.
LA RULING:
Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner. He found the
petition to be meritorious hence, rendering the dismissal of the petitioner,
ILLEGAL and that the petitioner was not merely a casual employee as
asserted by the respondents. He also ordered the respondent company
to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages and other benefits.
LA emphasized that the odd jobs assigned to the petitioner when the latter
had no painting or repainting jobs, such as works the maintenance, are
found to be necessary and desirable to the better operation of the
company. The respondent company did not even refute the affidavit of
Emiliano Tanque Jr, its regular maintenance employee.
PLATERO
SOLICITOR GENERAL’S COMMENT:
Recommended that the petition be given a due course, in view of its
evidence on record which supports the Petitioner’s contentions, annul the
decision of the NLRC and uphold the LA’s Decision.
ISSUE/S:
1.
2.
WON the petitioner is a Regular Employee and not a Casual Employee
WON the petitioner was illegally dismissed
RULING:
Yes. The Petitioner is a regular employee and was found to be illegally dismissed
by the respondent company. Hence, the petition was GRANTED.
The SC finds the petition meritorious and sustains the position of the Solicitor
General. The Court applied Article 280 of the LC (Regular and Casual
Employment). Records reveal that the tasks assigned to the petitioner, were
painting, cleaning, and operating machines, and the respondent company did not
even refute the petitioner and the affidavit of his co-employee. The Court ruled that
it is not tenable to argue, by the respondents, that the painting and maintenance
work of the petitioner is not necessary for its usual trade or business of
manufacturing liquors and wines, just as it can’t be said that only those who are
directly involved in the process of producing wines and liquors may be considered
as necessary employees. Also, the fact alone that the petitioner performed his work
for more than a year, until he demanded to be regularized and was subsequently
dismissed, gives him the entitlement to be considered as a regular employee.
The Court also stated the primary standard or test in determining the regular
employment, regarding the connection between the particular activity performed
by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer:
1. Whether the employee is usually necessary/desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer.
2. Considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the
scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety; and
3. If the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if
the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent.
CASE DIGEST:
MAGSALIN V. National Organization of Working Men (NOWM)
GR NO. 148492, May 9, 2003
FACTS:
Petitioner, Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., engaged the services of the respondent
workers as “sales route helpers” for a limited period of five months. Afterward, the
respondent workers were employed by the petitioner company on a day-to-day
basis. The petitioner company alleged that the respondent workers were hired as
a substitute for regular sales route helpers whenever the latter would be
unavailable or when there would be an unexpected shortage of manpower. The
practice was for the workers to wait every morning outside the gates of the sales
office of petitioner company, and if thus hired, the workers would then be paid their
wages at the end of the day.
The petitioner company refused when the respondent workers asked them to
extend to the latter the regular appointments. Twenty-three of the “temporary”
workers filed a complaint for regularization with the petitioner company to the
NLRC. The complaint was amended numerous times to include the fifty-eight
workers in the complaint, The respondent workers filed a notice to strike and a
complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice against the petitioner to the
NLRC after claiming that the latter terminated their services.
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:
Dismissed the complaint since the VA found the respondents were not
regular employees of the petitioner company.
The respondent workers filed for a petition for review of the decision with
the Court of Appeals.
CA’S RULING:
Petitioners (the workers) are regular employees of Coca Bottlers
Phils., Inc.;
Rendered the dismissal of the workers as ILLEGAL; and
Ordered the petitioners’ reinstatement and backwages
Denied the motion for reconsideration by the petitioner company
ISSUE/S:
WON the nature of work of the respondents are necessary and desirable in the
usual business or trade of the petitioner to qualify as regular employees
PLATERO
RULING:
YES. The nature of work of the respondents are necessary and desirable in the
usual business or trade of the petitioner company. YES. They are regular
employees. Hence, the questioned Decision of CA is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION
The basic law on the case is Article 280 of the LC (Regular and Casual
Employment). In Determining whether an employment should be considered
regular or non-regular, the SC used the applicable test on finding the reasonable
connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation
to the usual business or trade of the employer.
1. whether the work undertaken is necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer;
2. looking into the nature of the services rendered and its relation to the
general scheme under which the business or trade is pursued in the usual
course; and
3. performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not
continuous or is merely intermittent,
The SC ruled that the argument of the petitioner regarding the work assigned to
the workers involved merely a “postproduction activities” is not persuasive. It has
been ruled by the Court that it is erroneous to contend that only those whose work
is directly involved in the production may be held performing functions necessary
and desirable in its usual business or trade.
Moreover, the Court rendered that the repeated hiring of respondent workers and
the continuing need for their services clearly attest to the necessity or desirability
of their services in the regular conduct of the business or trade of the petitioner
company. The CA found that each worker has worked for at least one year with
the petitioner company.
The practice of employers by fixing a period for a few months, then thereafter hiring
the workers on a day-to-day basis is a mockery to the law. The practice of
precluding the acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, should be struck
down as being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public
policy.
CASE DIGEST:
CANDIAN OPPORTUNITIES UNLIMITED, INC., (COU) V. BART Q.
DALANGIN, JR.,
GR NO. 172223, February 6, 2012
A company issued a Memorandum, requiring its employees to attend a
“Values Formation Seminar” which was held on a Saturday, after their
office hours which end at 2PM. He informed Abad that he cannot attend
for he had to go to his family located in the province, but the latter refused
his request.
FACTS:
On November 20, 2001, respondent Bart Q. Dalangin filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, with a prayer for reinstatement, backwages and both moral and
exemplary damages, and lastly, attorney’s fees, against the petitioner company,
Canadian Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. The latter is based on Pasong Tamo Makati
City, which provides assistance and related services to applicants for permanent
residence in Canada.
The respondent was hired by the petitioner company only the previous month,
October 2001, as Immigration and Legal Manager, with a monthly salary of
P15,000.00. His task and responsibility principally involved the review of the
application of the clients for immigration to Canada to ensure that they are in
accordance with Canadian and Philippine Laws, and to directly report to Annie
Llamanzares Abad, the Chief Operations Officer of the company.
Through a memorandum dated October 27, 2001, signed by Abad, the company
terminated Dalangin’s employment, declaring him "unfit" and "unqualified" to
continue as Immigration and Legal Manager, for the following reasons:
a) Obstinacy and utter disregard of company policies. Propensity to take
prolonged and extended lunch breaks, shows no interest in familiarizing
oneself with the policies and objectives.
b) Lack of concern for the company’s interest despite having just been
employed in the company. (Declined to attend company sponsored
activities, seminars intended to familiarize company employees with
Management objectives and enhancement of company interest and
objectives.)
c) Showed lack of enthusiasm toward work.
d) Showed lack of interest in fostering relationship with his co-employees.
RESPONDENT’S POSITION
PLATERO
On October 26, 2001, Abad issued a memo requiring the respondent to
explain his absence in the said seminar which is scheduled on the next
day and other forthcoming seminar, and on the following day, the
Managing Director of the Company, Mr. Yadi N. Sichani, informed the
respondent that the latter’s services are already being terminated in the
meeting, due to being “hard-headed” and refusing management orders.
PETITIONER’S POSITION:
The company and the principal officer allegedly informed the respondents
that upon the latter’s engagement, he was advised that he was under
probation for six months and his employment could be terminated should
he fail to meet the standards to qualify as a regular employee. He was
also informed that he will be evaluated on the basis of the results of his
work, attitude towards the company, his work, co-employees, as spelled
out in his job description, and also based on Abad’s affidavit.
Petitioner alleged that the Rspondent manifested a lack of enthusiasm
towards his work, indifferent to his co-employees; He refused to comply
to company policies and procedures by routinely taking long hours for his
lunch break, leaving the company premises without properly informing his
superior; He lacks interpersonal skills and initiative when his client, Mrs.
Jennifer Tecson was denied by the Canadian Embassy by providing
counsel and finding a way to appeal the client’s denied application. He
also refused to attend company-sponsored seminars to acquaint or
update the employees with the company’s policies and objectives.
ARBITRATION’s DECISION
Ruled in favor of the respondent, rendering the latter’s dismissal, ILLEGAL.
Ordered the petitioners to award him backwages of Php 75,000, moral damages
of Php 50,000 and exemplary damages of Php 50,000. The charges against the
respondent were not established by clear and substantial proof.
NLRC’s DECISION
Granted the Appeal of Petitioner and reversed the LA’s Decision. Found that the
dismissal is a valid exercise of a management prerogative since the respondent
failed to meet the standards for regularization.
COURT OF APPEAL’s DECISION
Held that NLRC erred when the latter reversed the LA’s Decision that the
respondent was not illegally dismissed. Like the LA, CA declared that the
respondent company failed to support its claims with substantial evidence. Also
pointed out that the petitioner company did not allow the respondent to prove that
he possessed qualifications to mee the reasonable standard for his employment.
interest of the respondent on establishing good working relationship with his coemployees, especially with the rank and file.
Denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration, hence the appeal to Supreme
Court.
The SC emphasized that in each proceeding, the respondent chose to be silent
about the charges against him. He was complaining that he was not able to explain
his side, but from LA to this Court, he has offered no satisfactory explanations of
the charges. Hence, the Court finds credence in the company’s submission that
the respondent was unfit to continue in his position as Immigration and Legal
Manager and is further convinced that the company had seen enough from
Dalangin’s actuations, behavior and deportment during the four-week period.
ISSUE/S:
WON the respondent, a probationary employee, was validly dismissed.
RULING:
YES, the respondent was validly dismissed, hence the petition was GRANTED,
and the Decision of CA are SET ASIDE. The complaint was dismissed for lack of
merit.
The Supreme Court cited the International Catholic Migration Comimision v NLRC,
a case wherein the Court explained the probationary employment according to
Article 281 of the LC. Contrary to the finding of the CA, that it did not believe that
the petitioner company can fully assess the performance of the respondent within
a mont, the Court ruled that the essence of the probationary period lies on the
purpose or objective of both employer and the employee during the period.
According to the same Article, the “trial period” or length of time the probationary
employee remains on probation depends on the parties’ agreement, but it shall not
exceed 6 months, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement, stipulating
a longer period.
As the Court explained in the Case of International Catholic Migrat8ion
Commission, the word “probationary” as used to describe the period of
employment, IMPLIES THE PURPOSE OF THE TERM OR PERIOD BUT NOT
ITS LENGTH.
The Court has also found substantial evidence, contrary to what the CA ruled. The
incident regarding the “values Formation Seminar” was not only an eye-opener to
the kind of person and employee that respondent was, but it ALSO HIGHLIGHTS
his lack of interest in familiarizing himself with the company’s objectives and
policies, and significantly, the seminar also involved acquainting and updating
employees with the company’s policies and objectives. It also revealed the lack of
PLATERO
Moreover, respondent has exhibited negative habits, particularly Dalangin’s failure
to comply with one-hour lunch break, and observance of company office hours.
Regarding procedural due process issue, the Court supports the respondent’s
contention since he was dismissed on the very same day when the notice was
given to him. It does not invalidate the valid cause for his separation, but it awards
the respondent an appropriate nominal damages amaounting to Php 10,000.
Since there is valid reason for the respondent’s dismissal, all other claims must
fail.