Radin C. Alcira vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.

G.R. No. 149859 09 June 2004

FACTS:

Middleby Philippines Corporation (Middleby) hired Alcira as engineering support

services supervisor on a probationary basis for six months. According to Alciras papers,
he was hired 20 May 1996; while Middleby presents papers stating that the correct date
should be 27 May 1996. Both documents indicated that Alcira was on probationary and a
remark that after five months, his performance will be evaluated. On 20 November 1996,
a senior officer allegedly withheld Alciras time card and considered this as a dismissal
after the lapse of his probationary employment. Middleby averred that Alcira exhibited
poor performance, incurred ten absences, was late several times and violated company
policy regarding the wearing of uniform.

LA dismissed the complaint on the ground that Middleby were able to prove that
petitioner was apprised of the standards for becoming a regular employee. NLRC
affirmed the decision of the LA. CA also affirmed the decision of the NLRC, stating further
that there was merely an expiration of the contract and no termination is there to speak
of.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioner was allowed to work beyond his probationary period as was therefore
already a regular employee at the time of his alleged dismissal.

HELD:

Yes. The petitioner was still in his probationary period. To be clear, the five-month
period in his contract is for evaluation purposes only. It is clear upon the fact of the
contract that his probationary employment status was for six months. Moreover, the
computation of the six-month probationary period is reckoned from the date of
appointment up to the same calendar date of the six-month following. In short, since the
number of days in each particular month was irrelevant, the petitioner was still a
probationary employee when Middle by opted not to regularize him on 20 November
1996.

In lieu with Section 6(d) of Rule 1 of D.O. No. 10-1997, the Court held that Middleby
substantially notified petitioner of the standard to qualify as a regular employee when it
apprised him at the start of his employment, that it would evaluate his supervisory skills
after five months.