Philippine Daily Inquirer v.

Magtibay
Facts:
Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. (PDI) hired Leon Magtibay (Magtibay) as a contractual worker for 5 months. After the expiration of the said contract,
PDI hired him again with a probationary period of 6 months. A week before the end of the second contract, PDI handed him his termination letter due
to failure in meeting company standards.
Magtibay then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter stating that he has now become a regular employee by working for
more than 6 months. The PDI union supported him stating unfair labor practice. Saying that he did not know he was supposed to follow company
standards and that he was not given due process in his termination.
PDI explained that his 5-month contract should not be included with his 6-month contract allowing him to be considered a regular employee, and that
he was in fact given an orientation on what the company standards were. The Labor Arbiter agreed with PDI and dismissed his complaint and
acquitted PDI of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.
When the case was brought to the NLRC, it reversed the Arbiters decision and charged PDI with illegal dismissal due to the fact that Magtibay
was now considered a regular employee. Also, Magtibay was not told that he must abide by company standards.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the NLRC. PDI filed a motion for reconsideration to no avail.
Issue:
Whether or not a probationary employees failure to follow company standards is ground for illegal dismissal. WON PDI is liable for violating
procedural due process in terminating Magtibay.
Ruling:
The NLRC and CAs decisions were reversed and set aside thereby reinstating the Labor Arbiters decision to acquit PDI of illegal dismissal and
unfair labor practice.
The SC ruled that company standards are meant to be followed even if an employee is not made aware of them. It is inherent that company
standards are always in effect and employees, probationary or regular, are expected to meet them.
Also, PDI is did not violate procedural process due to the fact the Magtibay was on a probationary period and was not up to company standards.
Reason is that a probationary has the duty to prove his worth to the employer to become a permanent employee. The due process here is in the
constant observance and evaluation of Magtibays performance, in which he failed by violating certain company rules and regulations.