MAGIS YOUNG ACHIEVERS’
LEARNING CENTER and
MRS. VIOLETA T. CARIÑO,
petitioners, vs.
ADELAIDA P. MANALO,
respondent.
G.R. No. 178835
February 13, 2009
FACTS:
 On April 18, 2002, respondent
Manalo was hired as a teacher
and acting principal of
petitioner Learning Center.
 On record, on March 29, 2003,
respondent wrote a letter of
resignation.
 However, on March 31, 2003,
respondent received a letter of
termination from petitioner
stating that due to a cost-
cutting scheme, the petitioner
will abolish the position of the
principal. Consequently, the
contract with the respondent
will no longer be renewed.
ISSUE:
 WON the respondent, as a
probationary employee, is
entitled to security of tenure.
RULING:
Yes, the respondent is
entitled to security of tenure.
In Biboso vs. Victorias
Milling Co., Inc., the Court ruled
that teachers on probationary
employment enjoy security of
tenure as this protection is
guaranteed by the Constitution. As
such, they cannot be removed
except for cause as provided by
law, or if at the end of every yearly
contract during the three-year
period, the employee does not meet
the reasonable standards set by the
employer at the time of
engagement.
In this case, the
employment of the respondent, as
teacher, in petitioner school on
April 18, 2002 is probationary in
character, consistent with standard
practice in private schools (she has
not completed the requisite three-
year period of probationary
employment, as provided in the
Manual).
However, even as a
probationary teacher, it was
incumbent upon petitioner to show
by competent evidence that she did
not meet the standards set by the
school.
HOLIDAY INN MANILA
and/or HUBERT LINER and
BABY DISQUITADO,
Petitioners, vs.
NLRC (Second Division) and
ELENA HONASAN,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 109114
September 14, 1993
FACTS:
 On May 13, 1992, after
completing her “on-the-job
training” as a telephone
operator, she was employed by
petitioner Holiday Inn on a
“probationary” basis for a
period of six months ending
November 12, 1992.
 Her employment contract
stipulated that the Hotel could
terminate her probationary
employment at any time prior
to the expiration of the six-
month period in the event of
her failure (a) to learn or
progress in her job; (b) to
faithfully observe and comply
with the hotel rules and the
instructions and orders of her
superiors; or (c) to perform her
duties according to hotel
standards.
 On November 8, 1991, four
days before the expiration of
the stipulated deadline,
Holiday Inn notified her of her
dismissal, on the ground that
her performance had not come
up to the standards of the
Hotel.
ISSUE:
 WON Honasan was already a
regular employee at the time of
her dismissal, which was made
4 days before the expiration of
the probation period.
RULING:
Yes, Honasan was already
a regular employee.
Art. 281 of the Labor Code
provides that probationary
employment shall not exceed six
(6) months from the date the
employee started working, unless it
is covered by an apprenticeship
agreement stipulating a longer
period.
In this case, Honasan was
placed by the petitioner on
probation twice. First, for three
weeks during her OJT. When her
services were continued after this
training, the petitioners in effect
recognized that she had passed
probation and was qualified to be a
regular employee.
If her services proved
unsatisfactory then, she could have
been dropped as early during that
period. But she was not. On the
contrary, her services were
continued, presumably because
they were acceptable, although she
was formally placed this time on
probation.
As a regular employee,
Honasan had acquired the
protection of Art. 279 of the Labor
Code (security of tenure).
JAKA FOOD PROCESSING
CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.
DARWIN PACOT, ROBERT
PAROHINOG, DAVID
BISNAR, MARLON
DOMINGO, RHOEL
LESCANO and JONATHAN
CAGABCAB, respondents.
G.R. NO. 151378
March 28, 2005
FACTS:
 Respondents were hired by
petitioner JAKA until the latter
terminated their employment
on August 29, 1997 because
 the corporation was “in dire
financial straits.” However, the
termination was effected
without JAKA complying with
the requirement under Art. 283
of the Labor Code regarding
the service of a written notice
upon the employees and the
DOLE at least one (1) month
before the intended date of
termination.
ISSUE:
 What are the legal implications
of a situation where an
employee is dismissed for
cause but such dismissal was
effected without the
employer’s compliance with
the notice requirement under
the Labor Code?
RULING:
If the dismissal is based on
a just cause under Art. 282 but the
employer failed to comply with the
notice requirement, the sanction to
be imposed upon him should be
tempered because the dismissal
process was, in effect, initiated by
an act imputable to the employee.
On the other hand, if the dismissal
is based on an authorized cause
under Art. 283 but the employer
failed to comply with the notice
requirement, the sanction should
be stiffer because the dismissal
process was initiated by the
employer’s exercise of his
management prerogative.
PAL, Inc. vs. PASCUA
G.R. No. 143258
August 15, 2003
FACTS:
 PAL hired private respondents
as station attendants on a four
or six-hour work-shift a day at
five to six days a week.
 On certain occasions, PAL
compelled private respondents
to work overtime because of
urgent necessity. The contracts
with private respondents were
extended twice, the last of
which appears to have been for
an indefinite period.
 On Feb. 3, 1994, private
respondent Pascua, in his
behalf and on behalf of other
79 part-time station attendants,
filed with the DOLE a
complaint for regularization
and money claims.
 During the pendency of the
case, PAL converted the
employment status of private
respondents from temporary
part-time to regular part-time.
 The Executive LA dismissed
the complaint as it found the
private respondents’
remaining cause of action was
rendered moot and academic
by their supervening
regularization.
ISSUES:
 WON petitioner’s act of
converting respondents’ status
from temporary to regular
employees render the original
complaint for “regularization”
moot and academic.
 WON the CA erred when it
upheld the NLRC decision to
accord respondents regular
full-time employment
although petitioner, in the
exercise of its management
prerogative, requires only part-
time services.
RULING:
 No, the supervening
regularization did not render
the complaint moot and
academic.
An issue becomes moot
and academic when it ceases to
present a justifiable
controversy, so that a
declaration on the issue would
be of no practical use or value.
Here, it is readily apparent
that the dismissal of the
original complaint by the labor
arbiter would negate the
substantial relief to which
respondents would have been
entitled. They seek regular
full-time employment and this
claim is fully set forth in the
original complaint. The mere
regularization of respondents
would still not entitle them to
all benefits under the CBA,
which regular full-time
employees enjoy.
 No, the CA did not err.
 While it may be conceded that
management is in the best
position to know its
operational needs, the exercise
of management prerogative
cannot be utilized to
circumvent the law and public
policy on labor and social
justice. Moreover, Art. 280 of
the Labor Code provides that
any employee who has
rendered at least one year of
service, whether such service
is continuous or broken, shall
be considered a regular
employee with respect to the
activity in which he is
employed.
In this case, the
respondents’ employment was
extended for more than two
years. Evidently, there was a
continued and repeated
necessity for their services,
which puts to naught the
contention that respondents,
beyond the one-year period,
still continued to be temporary
part-time employees.