You are on page 1of 2


279 LC
2. APPLICATION OF THE RIGHT; REGULAR EMPLOYMENT. The full protection of the righ
t to security of tenure applies to regular employment (Art. 279 LC). Regardless
of the written or oral agreements of the parties, an employment is deemed regula
r where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually ne
cessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer (Art. 280 LC

Probationary employment cannot be implied. If there is no statement in the emplo
yment contract as to probationary status, and no statement of requirements to be
complied with, these do not justify the conclusion that the worker concerned is
a probationary employee. (A.M, Oreta and Co. vs. NLRC, 176 SCRA 218)

Probationary employees who are unjustly dismissed during the probationary period
are entitled to reinstatement and payment of full back wages and other benefits
and privileges under Art, 179 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, w
hich took effect on March 21,1989. During the probationary period an employee ca
n be dismissed for cause and for failure to meet reasonable standards made known
to him upon his employment. These may be done even before the end of the probat
ionary period, and the employer will not be liable to pay wages for the unexpire
d portion of said period. (International Catholic Migration Commission vs. NLRC
and Galang, 169 SCRA 606) In this regard, the employer must present sufficient e
vidence to substantiate the cause of the probationary employee's dismissal and c
ite particular instances to show the latter's poor performance. Euro - Linea Phi
l. vs. NLRC, 156 SCRA 78).

The probationary period shall not exceed six months, and a probationary employee
who is allowed to work after the probationary period is considered a regular em
ployee and is entitled to security of tenure. He cannot be dismissed without leg
al ground. (Cebu Royal Plant vs. Dep. Minister, 153 SCRA 38)

To safeguard the Constitutional right of probationary employees to security of t
enure, the Supreme Court has set various limitations on the power of an employer
to terminate a probationary employment contract, namely: (1) It must be exercis
ed in accordance with the specific requirements of the contract. If a particular
time is prescribed, the termination must be done within such time. Should the c
ontract require a written notice, then such form should be used. (2) The dissati
sfaction of the employer must be real and in good faith, not feigned so as to ci
rcumvent the contract or the law. (3) There must be no unlawful discrimination i
n the dismissal. (Manila Hotel Corp. vs. NLRC, 141 SCRA 164; Lopez vs. Javier, 2
52 SCRA 68).

employee transfer
Thus the Supreme Court stated that "except as limited by special laws, an employ
er is free to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspect
s of employment including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place
and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of
workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, lay-off of workers and the
discipline, dismissal and recall of work." (San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union
vs. Ople, 170 SCRA 25) But an employer's prerogative and power to discipline an

The emp loyer must show that a transfer or reassignment of an employee is not unreasonab le. (Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp. privileges and other benefits. vs. (National Bookstore..R.d terminate employees" services may not be exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner as to erode and render meaningless the Constitutional guarantees of secu rity of tenure and due process. . NLRC. petitioner. but a lso habitual. FOURTH DIVISION. et al vs. 39 SCRA 77) just cause for dismissal In a more recent case. The los s of confidence must be substantiated by evidence. NLRC et al. . inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee. INC. the Supreme Court cautioned that having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. But even managerial employees enjoy security of tenure. vs.[G. VIRGINIA CAMACHO QUINTIA. 2 60 SCRA 49) In a recent case. Cou rt of Appeals. 1998] INTERNATIONAL PHARMACEUTICALS. . respondents. nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries. Refusal of an employee to be transferred to a new assignment unless a bigger sal ary increase is given constitutes insubordination. (Castillo vs. vs. 14. 106331 March 9. 2002) implied contract (no contract) implied contract exists when there is consideration involved (your payroll) and the conduct or circumstances of the parties involved would tend to indicate that an implied contract existed. the employee's transfer shall be tantamount to constructive dismissal. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS CO MMISSION (NLRC). The burden of proof is on th e employer to show grounds justifying the loss of confidence. Thus the single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute ajust cause for the dismissal of the employee. Sept. CW. Feb. No. (Blue Dairy Corp. . and is a just cause for termi nation. . . the Court held that in order to constitute a just cause f or the employee's dismissal. the neglect of duties must not only be gross. . can only be dismissed after cause is shown in an appropriate proceeding. and. . 1999). . loss of confidence Loss of confidence is a valid ground for the dismissal of managerial employees . Should t he employer fail to prove these. Inc. -. 27. and DR.