12.

DUE PROCESS

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, PHILIPPINES, CECILLE A. TERRIBLE, EDWIN D. FEIST, MARIA OLIVIA T.

YABUTMISA, TERESITA C. BERNARDO, AND ALLAN G. ALMAZAR, v. PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ
G.R. No. 192571               July 23, 2013

FACTS:

Abbott Laboratories, Philippines (Abbott), a pharmaceutical company in need of Medical and Regulatory
Affairs Manager, caused the publication in a major broadsheet newspaper the said need which included
the duties and responsibilities.

PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ, respondent, applied and hired thereafter under probationary contract for 6
months. Her responsibilities were discussed to her during her pre-orientation, including the handling of
some staffs in the company and handling the evaluation of the probationary staffs in coordination with
the HR director. She was also given copies of Abbott’s Code of Conduct and Probationary Performance
Standards and Evaluation (PPSE) and Performance Excellence Orientation Modules (Performance
Modules) which she have to apply in her task of evaluating the staffs.

Alcaraz was told that her method of management was too strict because she would reprimand some of
the staff for their unprofessional behavior. Subsequently, Alcaraz was called to a meeting with Walsh
and Terrible, Abbotts’ former director, where she was informed that that she failed to meet the
regularization standards for the position of Regulatory Affairs Manager. Next day, she was told that
Walsh and Terrible already announced to the whole Hospira ALSU staff that Alcaraz already resigned due
to health reasons. A week later, she was handed a letter stating that her services had been terminated
effective May 19, 2005. 

Alcaraz felt that she was unjustly terminated from her employment and thus, filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and damages against Abbott and its officers.

LA dismissed Alcaraz’s complaint. NLRC reversed LA decision and held that Abbot has committed illegal
dismissal. Alcaraz’s receipt of her job description and Abbott’s Code of Conduct and Performance
Modules was not equivalent to her being actually informed of the performance standards upon which
she should have been evaluated on. CA affirmed NLRC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Alcaraz was validly terminated from her employment

RULING:

Yes. Alcaraz was validly terminated.

A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys security of tenure. The services of an
employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated for any of the following: 

(a)   a just or (b) an authorized cause; and (c) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in
accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the employer. 

(b)   Provided that: the employer shall make known to the employee the standards under which he will
qualify as a regular employee at the time of his engagement. Where no standards are made known to
the employee at that time, he shall be deemed a regular employee. 

Abbott indicated the job description in the newspaper were they offered the job to interested
applicants. Received employment contract, underwent to pre-employment contract, training, received
code of conduct manual. Alcaraz had previously worked for another pharmaceutical company and had
admitted to have an "extensive training and background" to acquire the necessary skills for her job, thus
the fact that she was well-aware of her duties and responsibilities and that her failure to adequately
perform the same would lead to her non-regularization and eventually, her termination.

However, Abbot did not comply with its own company policy.

In this case, it is apparent that Abbott failed to follow the procedure in evaluating Alcaraz. For one, there
lies a hiatus of evidence that a signed copy of Alcaraz’s PPSE form was submitted to the HRD. It was not
even shown that a PPSE form was completed to formally assess her performance. Neither was the
performance evaluation discussed with her during the third and fifth months of her employment. Nor
did Abbott come up with the necessary Performance Improvement Plan to properly gauge Alcaraz’s
performance with the set company standards.

While the cause to terminate Alcaraz’s probationary employment was her failure to meet the standards
required for her regularization, the fact that it violated its own company procedure renders the
termination of Alcaraz’s employment procedurally infirmed, warranting the payment of nominal
damages.

Case law has settled that an employer who terminates an employee for a valid cause but does so
through invalid procedure is liable to pay the latter nominal damages.