Abbott v Alcaraz

Facts

June 27, 2004 – Abbott caused the publication in a major broadsheet newspaper of its need for a
Medical and Regulatory Affairs manager.

Oct. 4, 2004 - Alcaraz – who was then a regulatory affairs and information manager at Aventis Pasteur
Ph Inc. submitted her application.

Dec. 7, 2004 – Abbott formally offered Alcaraz the position under that company’s Hospira Affiliate Local
Surveillance Unit (ALSU) dept. Alcaraz was to be employed on a probationary basis. She accepted the
offer and received an Email from Bernardo confirming the same. Attached in the email were Abbott’s
organizational chart and the job description of Alcaraz.

Feb. 12, 2005 – Alcaraz signed an employment contract which stated that she was to be place on
probation for 6 months (Feb 15, 2005 – Aug. 14, 2005)

During Alcaraz’s pre-employment orientation, Almazar briefed her on her duties and responsibilities

Apr 12, 2005 – Alcaraz received an email from Misa requesting immediate action on the staff’s
performance evaluation as their probationary periods were about to end.

May 16, 2005 – Alcaraz was called to a meeting with Walsh and Terrible where she was informed that
she failed to meet the regularization standards for the position of Regulatory Affairs Manager. Misa
requesting immediate action on the staff’s performance evaluation as their probationary periods were
about to end.

May 23, 2005 - Walsh, Almazar, and Bernardo personally handed to Alcaraz a letter stating that her
services had been terminated effective May 19, 2005.The letter detailed the reasons for Alcaraz’s
termination – particularly, that Alcaraz: (a) did not manage her time effectively; (b) failed to gain the
trust of her staff and to build an effective rapport with them; (c) failed to train her staff effectively; and
(d) was not able to obtain the knowledge and ability to make sound judgments on case processing and
article review which were necessary for the proper performance of her duties.

May 27, 2005 - Alcaraz received another copy of the said termination letter via registered mail.23

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, namely, Misa, Bernardo, Almazar, Walsh, Terrible,
and Feist.

She claimed that she should have already been considered as a regular and not a probationary
employee given Abbott’s failure to inform her of the reasonable standards for her regularization upon
her engagement as required under Article 295 of the Labor Code

Petitioners maintained that Alcaraz was validly terminated from her probationary employment given her
failure to satisfy the prescribed standards for her regularization which were made known to her at the
time of her engagement.
LA RULING

March 30, 2006 – LA dismissed Alzaraz’s complaint for lack of merit.

LA found that there was no evidence to conclude that Abbott’s officers and employees acted in bad faith
in terminating Alcaraz’s employment.

Displeased with the LA’s ruling, Alcaraz filed an appeal with the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC).

The NLRC Ruling

Sept. 15, 2006 – NLRC annulled and set aside the LA’s Ruling. Decision:

Abbott committed illegal dismissal. Abbott are ordered to immediately reinstate complainant to
her former position without loss of seniority rights immediately upon receipt hereof. To jointly
and severally pay complainant backwages computed from 16 May 2005 until finality of this
decision (P1,760,000.00). Respondents are ordered to pay complainant moral damages of
₱50,000.00 and exemplary damages of ₱50,000.00. Respondents are also ordered to pay
attorney’s fees of 10% of the total award. All other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.

The NLRC reversed the findings of the LA and ruled that there was no evidence showing that Alcaraz had
been apprised of her probationary status and the requirements which she should have complied with in
order to be a regular employee.

The NLRC was also not convinced that Alcaraz was terminated for a valid cause given that petitioners’
allegation of Alcaraz’s "poor performance" remained unsubstantiated.

Abbott filed a motion for reconsideration. DENIED.

Abbott filed a petition for Certiorari to the CA with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of NLRC when it
ruled that Alcaraz was illegally dismissed

THE CA RULING

Dec. 10, 2009 – CA affirmed the ruling of the NLRC and held that the latter did not commit any grave
abuse of discretion in finding that Alcaraz was illegally dismissed.

ISSUE

(a) Whether or not petitioners are guilty of forum shopping and have violated the certification
requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court

(b) Whether or not Alcaraz was sufficiently informed of the reasonable standards to qualify her as a
regular employee;
(c) Whether or not Alcaraz was validly terminated from her employment; and

(d) Whether or not the individual petitioners herein are liable.

RULING

A. Forum Shopping

NO FORUM SHOPPING. The First CA Petition was instituted to question the ruling of the NLRC that
Alcaraz was illegally dismissed. The Second CA Petition pertains to the propriety of the enforcement of
the judgment award pending the resolution of the First CA Petition and the finality of the decision in the
labor dispute between Alcaraz and the petitioners. Based on the foregoing, a judgment in the Second CA
Petition will not constitute res judicata insofar as the First CA Petition is concerned.

Forum Shopping takes place when a litigant files multiple suits involving the same parties, either
simultaneously or successively, to secure a favorable judgement.

B. Probationary employment; grounds for termination

Ground for Termination for Probationary Employee – ARTICLE 295 of the Labor Code

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

Abbott complied with the rules to let the employee know his/her probationary status

In fine, the Court rules that Alcaraz’s status as a probationary employee and her consequent dismissal
must stand. Consequently, in holding that Alcaraz was illegally dismissed due to her status as a regular
and not a probationary employee, the Court finds that the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, by affirming the NLRC’s pronouncement which is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the
CA committed a reversible error which, perforce, necessitates the reversal of its decision.

C. Probationary employment; termination procedure

Usual two-notice rule does not govern. Written notice given to the employee within a reasonable time
from the effective date of termination is sufficient

D. Employer’s violation of company policy and procedure

Abbott breached its contractual obligation to Alcaraz when it failed to abide by its own procedure in
evaluating the performance of a probationary employee.

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. (P30,000)
E. Liability of Individual petitioners as corporate officers

Alcaraz alleged that the individual petitioner acted in bad faith and should be held liable together with
Abbott. However, Alcaraz’s contention fails to persuade. All told, since Alcaraz failed to prove any
malicious act on the part of Abbott or any of its officers, the Court finds the award of moral or exemplary
damages unwarranted.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 10, 2009 and Resolution dated
June 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 101045 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the Decision dated March 30, 2006 of the Labor Arbiter is REINSTATED with the
MODIFICATION that petitioner Abbott Laboratories, Philippines be ORDERED to pay respondent Pearlie
Ann F. Alcaraz nominal damages in the amount of ₱30,000.00 on account of its breach of its own
company procedure.