MYLENE CARVAJAL, Petitioner,

vs.
LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK AND/OR OSCAR Z. RAMIREZ, Respondents.

G.R. No. 186169 August 1, 2012

FACTS:

Mylene was employed as a trainee-teller by Luzon Development Bank under a 6-month probationary
employment contract. On December 2003, she received a letter from the Bank asking her to explain her
“chronic tardiness” for being late 8 times on the month of November. She apologized and explained that
she was still adjusting. Another letter was sent to her on January 2004 asking her again to explain her
“chronic tardiness” during several occasions in December 2003. She was suspended for 3 days and then
eventually terminated on the same month. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. LA and NLRC ruled
in favor of Mylene, saying that she was dismissed without due process because she was not afforded the
notice in writing informing her of what the Bank would like to bring out to her for the latter to answer in
writing.

ISSUE: W/N petitioner was illegally dismissed?

RULING:

NO

IN THIS CASE, it is evident that the primary cause of respondent’s dismissal from her
probationary employment was her “chronic tardiness.” The dismissal of a probationary
employee due to failure to qualify in accordance with the standards prescribed by
employer does NOT require notice and hearing. Due process of law consists of making the
reasonable standards expected of the employee during his probationary period known to him at the
time of his engagement. By the very nature of probationary employment, the employee knows from the
very start that he will be under close observation and continuous scrutiny by his supervisors. If
termination is for cause, it may be done at any time during the probation.

 In the case of Carvajal vs. Luzon Development Bank The dismissal of a probationary
employee due to failure to qualify in accordance with the standards prescribed by employer
does NOT require notice and hearing.