You are on page 1of 1

Mylene Carvajal v.

Luzon Development Bank  The dismissal of a probationary employee due to failure to qualify in
accordance with the standards prescribed by employer does NOT
TOPIC: Procedural requirements; In probationary employment: no require notice and hearing.
requirement for notice and hearing if based on failure to qualify o As held in Philippine Daily Inquirer v Magtibay Jr., due process
of law for this second ground consists of making the
FACTS: reasonable standards expected of the employee during his
On October 2003, Mylene was employed as a trainee-teller by Luzon probationary period known to him at the time of his
Development Bank under a 6-month probationary employment contract. On probationary employment. It is in apprising him of the
December 2003, she received a letter from the Bank asking her to explain her standards against which his performance shall be
“chronic tardiness” for being late 8 times on the month of November. She continuously assessed where due process regarding the
apologized and explained that she was still adjusting. Another letter was sent second ground lies, and not in notice and hearing as in the
to her on January 2004 asking her again to explain her “chronic tardiness” case of the first ground.
during several occasions in December 2003. She was suspended for 3 days o IN THIS CASE, the Bank complied with the basic
and then eventually terminated on the same month. She filed a complaint for requirements of due process. Mylene had sufficient
illegal dismissal. LA and NLRC ruled in favor of Mylene, saying that she was knowledge of the standards her job entails. The Bank had not
dismissed without due process because she was not afforded the notice in been remiss in reminding her, through memoranda, of the
writing informing her of what the Bank would like to bring out to her for the standards that should be observed in aspiring for
latter to answer in writing. regularization. She was called by the head who discussed
with her the reasons for the discontinuance of her
ISSUE: W/N petitioner was illegally dismissed? NO probationary appointment before she was formally served the
termination letter on that very same day. There was, in this
RULING: case, full accordance to petitioner of the opportunity to be
 In cases of probationary employment, aside from just or authorized heard.
causes of termination, the probationary employee may also be
terminated for failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance In sum, petitioner was validly dismissed from probationary employment before
with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the the expiration of her 6-month probationary employment contract. If the
employee at the time of the engagement. termination is for cause, it may be done anytime during the probation; the
o IN THIS CASE, it is evident that the primary cause of employer does not have to wait until the probation period is over.
respondent’s dismissal from her probationary employment
was her “chronic tardiness.” At the very start of her PETITION DENIED.
employment, she had already incurred several counts of
tardiness, and was even warned that her tardiness might
affect her opportunity to become a permanent or regular
employee. And petitioner did not provide a satisfactory
explanation for the cause of her tardiness.
o Assuming that petitioner was not apprised of the standards
concomitant to her job, it is but common sense that she must
abide by the work hours imposed by the bank. The rule on
reasonable standards made known to the employee prior to
engagement should not be used to exculpate a probationary
employee who acts in a manner contrary to basic knowledge
and common sense, in regard to which there is no need to
spell out a policy or standard to be met.