Probationary employees

2. Duration: rule/exception

Canadian Opportunities Unlimited, Inc v Bart Dalangin Jr (2012, Brion, review on certiorari)

- 2001 Oct
o Dalangin hired as Immigration and Legal Manager, reviews client apps for
immigration to Canada || Canadian and Ph laws. Boss: Chief Ops Officer
o On probation
 Canadian: informed of possibility of termination should he fail to meet
standards; would be evaluated on basis of result of work, attitude
towards company, work, co-ees || job description, Abad affidavit
o With 15 thou moly salary
- 27 Oct memo by Chief Ops Officer Abad: Dalangin dismissed
o Unift and unqualified
o Obstinacy and utter disregard of co policies—prolonged breaks
o Lack of concern for co’s interest—declined attendance of co activities
o Lack of enthusiasm
o Lack of interest
- Dalangin: activities were from 2 pm onwards. Work on Sat only until 2 pm. No OT unless
89, LC. Had to be with family in province. Seminar not related to field of work.
- Canadian: informed him of standards; Dalangin lacked enthusiasm, interpersonal skills;
failed to assist client Tecson; refused to attend seminars.
- LA: Dalangin illegally dismissed; backwages, damages. Charges v Dalangin not proved
- NLRC: reversed. Valid exercise of management prerogative
- CA: reversed. Affirmed LA. Canadian did not allow Dalangin to prove that he has
qualifications. Co cannot determine Dalangin’s performance barely a mo into work
- SC:
o Canadian:
 requirement of notice and hearing required in termination not based on
just cause
 Dalangin dismissed due to failure to qualify; therefore || IRR:
sufficient that written notice served within reasonable time
from effective date of termination
 Dalangin not entitled to damages
o Dalangin not illegally dismissed
 || International Catholic Migration Commisssion v NLRC: probationary
ee is one who is on trial by an er, during which the latter determines
whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment
 Probationary appointment gives the er an opportunity to
observe the fitness of a probationer while at work
 Essence of probationary period of employment fundamentally lies in the
purpose or objective of both the er and the ee during the pd
  Er: observes fitness, propriety, efficiency to ascertain whether is
qualified for permanent employment
 Ee: to prove to er that he has qualifications to meet the
reasonable standards for permanent employment
 “probationary” as in “probationary employment” implies purpose of
term or period but not its length
 Therefore, fact that Dalangin dismissed only after four weeks does not
necessarily mean that his separation from service without basis
 Dalangin overlooks fact that he showed co his own behavior
o Should have attended Values Formation Seminar—
refusal to do so shows what was wrong with him.
Seminar on co policies and objectives; could have
known policies on punctuality, attendance.
o Arrogant and condescending towards co-ees; did not
want to be with rank-and-file
o Prolonged lunch breaks and would go out, never to
return
o Tecson’s application
o Procedural due process not observed
 Memo asking Dalangin to explain why he could not attend did not give
him reasonable time—was dismissed the very day
 Therefore: 10,000 nominal
o GRANTED

3. Limitations on employer’s right to terminate probationary employment

Univac Development, Inc v William Soriano (2013, Peralta, review on certiorari)

- Soriano
o Hired as legal assistant for 15 thou moly
o On probation, 23 Aug 2004-23 Feb 2004
- 15 Feb 2004, 8 days before expiry
o Was informed by Engrg Dep’t Head Castro of termination due to cost-cutting
o Asked for thirty-day notice but termination ordered effective immediately
- Univac: denied. Soriano expressed intent to leave company to review for bar and was
then also informed of unsatisfactory performance. Soriano did not report to work 16
Feb so Univac thought Soriano would push through with plan to leave
- LA: Soriano: illegal dism
o Dismissed
o Soriano informed of unsatisfactory performance.
o Law graduate Soriano should know probationary employment to end
o But entitled to backwages for 8 days
o No constructive dismissal
- NLRC: affirmed
 o Sustained claim that Soriano apprised of performance during company mtg
o Valid exercise of management prerogative

- CA: set aside

o Illegally dismissed
o Univac failed to apprise Soriano of standards required for regularization
o No evaluation of performance
o Employment of another person to replace Soriano on day of abandonment
negates claim of abandonment
- SC:
o CA may still review NLRC decisions via certiorari
o Soriano illegally dismissed
 Power to terminate probationary ee subject to three limitations
 Must be exercised in accordance with the specific requirements
of the contract
 The dissatisfaction on the part of the er must be real and in
good faith, not feigned so as to circumvent the contract or the
law
 There must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal
 Primordial: at start of probationary pd, standards for regularization
must be made known to probationary ee; else: hired as regular ||
Tamson v CA
 Here, no evidence; LA, NLRC relied on surmises, presumptions
that Soriano knew standards considering education
 In order to invoke failure to meet standards as justification for dismissal,
er must show how these standards have been applied to ee
 Here, none
 Er must prove dismissal for just cause and ee afforded due process
 CA correct. Univac failed to discharge burden
o Strained relations. No reinstatement. Sep pay, backwages. Fees.
o DENIED. CA affirmed

4. Extension of contract

Phil Federation of Credit Cooperatives, Inc, Fr Benedicto Jayoma v NLRC, Victoria Abril (1998,
Romero, certiorari)

- 1982, Abril hired by Federation

o As Junior Auditor/Field Examiner
o After which held diff positions
 Office sec in 85
 Cashier-designate in 88
o Went on leave to give birth
 Upon return, Vangie Santos already in her post
- LA: Abril: ill dism
 o Dismissed
- NLRC: reversed
o Reinstate as Regional Field Officer
- SC:
o Federation: Abril under casual or contractual employment; employ fixed for
specific proj, completion of which determined at engagement
o Abril hired on probation
 || contract: er hires ee on contractual basis to the position of Regional
Field Officer under Proj No 8175 and to do the function as stipulated in
the job description assienged to her on probationary status effective 17
Feb 90 for a pd not to exceed six mos from effectivity, subj to renewal of
this contract should the ee’s performance be satisfactory
 That Abril hired for fixed pd contradicted by subsequent probationary
status statement
 Contract ambiguous
 || Villanueva v NLRC: where contract of employment, being a
contract of adhesion, is ambiguous, any ambiguity therein
should be construed strictly against the party who prepared it
 || 1702, CC: in case of doubt all labor contracts shall be
construed in favor of labor
 || International Catholic Migration v NLRC: probationary ee is one who
is on trial….
 Probationary ees, notwithstanding limited tenure, also entitled
to security of tenure
 Therefore, except for just cause as provided by law or under the
employment contract, a probationary ee cannot be terminated
 Regardless of designation of er upon ee’s employment status,
 Here, uncontroverted that Abril completed probationary pd,
was allowed to work after
o Therefore, Abril regularized
o Therefore, illegally dismissed
o AFFIRMED

5. Absorbed employees

Cebu Stevedoring Co, Inc v Regional Dir/Minster of Labor, Arsenio Gelig, Maria Quijano (1988,
Regalado, certiorari to review Regional Dir Order, Cebu)

- Gelig and Quijano former ees of Cebu Customs Arrastre Service

- 77 May: Cebu Customs abolished for its objectives had already been attained
o All ees given sep pay
 Absorbed by Cebu Stevedoring with same positions in Cebu Customs
- 77 Oct: Gelig and Quijano dismissed
o No clearance
o Redundancy
 - Regional Office: Gelig, Quijano: reinstatement with backwages
o No need to employ G and Q as probationary ees bc experienced || Ce Customs
o Not absorbed for a definite pd but for an indefinite pd
- Minister of Labor: affirmed. Need not go probationary test in same line of work where
they have gained latitude of expertise
- Office of Pres: dismissed Cebu Stevedoring’s appeal; no law recognizing right to appeal
to Office in cases of such nature; appeal not meritorious anyway
- SC:
o Cebu Stevedoring:
 Denied due process
 G and Q casuals
 can be terminated within 6-mo pd without need of clearance
from Ministry of Labor
 no need for sep pay
 Redundancy one of valid legal grounds; also retrenchment
o Not denied due process. No oral argument but submitted position paper
 Appellate review curative of alleged denial of due process
o G & Q cannot be probationary ees; instead regular
 Already well-trained—clerks for ten years
 Therefore, cannot be dismissed except for just and authorized cause
 Retrenchment? Redundancy?
o Not shown by records
o Financial loss not supported by evidence
 Absorbed ees for six mos without intimation of
distress
o Never advised of retrenchment program
o Statement of Operations uncorroborated, self-serving
 Constitutional duty of State to protect rt of laborers to security of
tenure demands that er may be permitted to terminate services of ee
only under conditions allowed by and with due process of law
o Reinstate, if not possible, sep pay; backwages
o DENIED

6. Standards to qualify as a regular employee

Abbott Laboratories Ph, Cecile Terrible, Edwin Feist, Mario Yabut-Misa, Teresita Bernardo, Allan
Almazar v Pearlie Alcaraz (2013, Perlas-Bernabe, certiorari)

- Alcaraz Regulatory Affairs and Info Mgr at Aventis Pasteur Ph, pharmaceutical co
- Abbott, pharmaceutical co, advertised need for Medical and Regulatory Affairs Mgr
- 2004, Alcaraz applied for post, was offered post
o Offer: employed on probationary basis
o Alcaraz accepted offer and received e-mail from recruitment officer confirming
acceptance
- 2005, employment contract
 o Probationary pd of six mos
o Sgd by Gen Mgr Feist
o 110,000 moly salary
o Unless renewed, probationary appointment expires on date (15 Feb to 14 Aug)
- Pre-employment orientation
o Alcaraz informed of duties and responsibilities
- Alcaraz also received e-mail from Misa
o Procedure for evaluating performance of probationary ees; one evaluation sys
for all ees
o Code of Conduct and Probationary Performance Standards and Evaluation
 Job performance of probationary ee formally reviewed and discussed
with ee at least twice: first on third mo; second on fifth from date of
employment
 Performance improvement plan to be made during third mo in case of
gap bet performance and standards
 Standards to be discussed in detail within first two weeks
 Sgd copy to be submitted to HR to serve as documentation of
performance during probation
o Performance Excellence Orientation Modules
 To be applied in line with task of evaluating Hospira staff
- Alcaraz evaluated by Walsh to be too harsh in disciplining staff
o Reprimanding them on dress code, moonlighting, disrespect
o Was told to lie low
o Was assured by Misa that HR to support her in her decisions
- Alcaraz submitted evaluation of staff
- 2005 Apr: Alcaraz met with Terrible. Saw e-mail of Walsh asking abt A’s performance
o Not normal in evaluation process – Terrible
- May: mtg with Walsh and Terrible: failed to meet regularization standards; asked to
tender resignation
o Regardless of choice, no longer allowed to work. Surrender IDs
- Ff day: Alcaraz: will be on leave, but was informed of announcement that she resigned
due to health reasons
- 23 May: services terminated thru letter
o Did not manage time effectively
o Failed to gain trust of staff and build effective rapport
o Failed to train staff
o Did not obtain knowledge and ability to make sound judgments on case
processing and article review
- LA: Alcaraz: ill dism. Should have been considered regular and not probationary bc
Abbot failed to inform her of reasonable standards for regularization upon engagement
|| 295
o Abbott: standards made known to her
 o Alcaraz informed of reasonable standardsl briefed during work and received
copies of modules
o Not illegally dismissed
- NLRC: Reversed
o Illegally dismissed
o No evidence showing Alcaraz apprised of probationary status, requirements
o Job description and modules not = actually informing her of performance
standards
o Abbott did not comply with own SOP
o Poor performance claim not substantiated
- CA: affirmed
o Not apprised at start of employment of standards || employment contract
o Abbott unable to prove reasonable ground to terminate
- SC:
o No forum shopping
o Alcaraz probationary ee, validly dismissed
 Grounds for termination
 Just or
 auth causes
 || 295: failure to qualify as regular ee || reasonable standards
made known to ee at time of engagement
o || 6 (d), Rules: if er fails to inform ee of reasonable
standards at time of engagement, ee deemed regular
 Requirements in probationary employment
 Er must communicate the regularization standards to the
probationary ee
o When standards deemed to be made known:
 Er exerted reasonable efforts to apprise ee of
what ee is expected to do or accomplish during
trial pd of probation
 Er must make such communication at the time of the
probationary ee’s engagement
 Else, regular, not probationary, ee
 EXCEPT
 when job self-descriptive, eg, maid, cook, driver, …
 Rule on notifying of standards should not be used to exculpate
ee who acts in manner contrary to basic knowledge and
common sense
 Here, Abbott complied with requirements
 Alcaraz apprised of duties, responsibilities before, during, and
incipient stages of employment
 Common sense: adequate performance of one’s duties is, by and of
itself, an inherent and implied standard for a probationary ee to be
 regularized; such is a regularization standard which need not be literally
spelled out or mapped into technical indicators in every case
o Usual twin-notice rule does not govern in probationary employment
 Written notice served to ee within reasonable time from effective date
of termination sufficient || Omnibus Rules
 Complied with by Abbott
o BUT Abbott breached contract when it did not comply with own SOP
 || Parts Depot v Beiswenger: once er establishes express personnel
policy and ee continues to work while policy remains in effect,t policy
deemed an implied contract for so long as it remains in effect. If er
unilaterally changes policy, terms of implied contract also thereby
changed
 Therefore, er, ee obliged to comply with same
 Here, Abbott should have formally evaluated Alcaraz, as was policy
 Abbott has mgt prerogative to promulgate own rules and amend them,
but this right equally demands that when it creates its own policies and
notifies ees of same, it is also obliged to faithfully implement them; else
disharmonious
 Therefore, Alcaraz entitled to nominal damages
o No bad faith on part of officers
o GRANTED. REVERSED. LA Reinstated.

7. Private school teachers-rule

Jocelyn Herrera-Manaois v St Scholastica’s College (2013, Sereno)

- Manaois
o BA English, SSC, 1992
o Part-time En teacher, 1994
 LOA for one year
o Rehired by SSC
o Four years later: recommended by Dep’t Chairperson to become full-time
o Applied for full-time instructor for 00-01
 Mentioned MA in English Studies, Major in CW, UP
 Completing thesis; defense scheduled for Jun 00
- Dean of Arts and Sciences approved application
o Advised to maintin good performance
o Submit papers pertaining to degree
o Hired her as probationary full-time faculty member
o Rank: instructor
- Manaois on probation for three yrs
o No derogatory record
o Above satisfactory ratings
o Requested extension of teaching load for 03-04
  Mentioned candidacy for MA; defense schedule early 03 and intends to
earn degree that year with certification from UP: completed
coursework; long-term goal to apply for return to full-time faculty status
by then
- SSC denied renewal of contract
o Failed to attain MA degree
o Curriculum changes and streamlining can no longer maximize specialization
- LA: Manaois: illegal dismissal.
o SSC: application annotated: approved, on basis that she finishes her MA
o BUT SSC disclosed only two conditions to Manaois
 Maintain good performance
 Satisfied bc satisfactory performance
 Submit necessary papers pertaining to master’s deg
 Certification <UP OK
o MA requirement needed for assistant professor, not the post applied for
o Curriculum change not valid ground for dismissal
- NLRC: affirmed
- CA: reversed
o Manaois knew of MA requirement; expressed her completion of one +
Certification + correspondence bet parties re: MA
o Employment contract incorporated conditions in Faculty Manual: permanency
criteria listed, one of which is completion of master’s degree
o Contract merely expired and not renewed; no ill dism
- SC:
o Manaois a probationary ee to whom standards were made known at time of
engagement
 Probationary employment refers to trial stage…
 Affords er opp—before full force of guarantee of security of
tenure comes into play—to fully scrutinize and observe fitness
and worth of probationers while on the job and to determine
whether they would become proper and efficient ees
 Manaois was informed of master’s degree requirement || contract
which had manual: degree required
 Manaois’ actions and statements show that she knew of requirement
o Manaois cannot legally acquire permanent status
 Private educational institutions must still supplementarily refer to
prevailing standards, qualification, conditions set by the appropriate
government agencies
 Limitation on right of private schools, colleges, universities to select and
determine employment status of personnel imposed by state in view of
public int nature of educational institutions, so as to ensure quality and
competency of our schools, educators
 1992 Manual, Sec 92: Probationary Pd: subj in all instances to
compliance with Dep’t and school requirements, the probationary
 period for academic personnel shall not be more than three consecutive
years of satisfactory service for those in elementary, six consecutive
regular semesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary
 Sec 93: regular or permanent status. Those who have served the
probationary pd shall be made regular or permanent. Full-time teachers
who have satisfactorily completed their probationary pd shall be
considered regular or permanent
 Sec 44: min faculty qualifications. Min qualifications for faculty for diff
grades and levels of instruction duly supported by appropriate
credentials on file in school shall be… tertiary: holder of master’s degree
to teach largely in his major field
 Sec 45: for full-time and part-time, all private schools shall employ full-
time academic personnel consistent with the levels of instruction: …
possess at least the minimum academic qualifications prescribed by the
Dep’t under this Manual
 …all who do not meet foregoing considered part-time
o DENIED. CA affirmed.

a. Probationary v fixed-term ee in private schools

Universidad de Sta Isabel v Marvin-Julian Sambajon, Jr (2014, Villarama, Jr, certiorari)

- Sambajon
o hired as full-time college faculty member
 Appointment contract
 Assistant professor
 Probationary status
 Effective: 1 Nov 02 to 30 Mar 03
o Completed MA in Education, major in Guidance and Counseling in June 03
 Submitted Special Order from CHED with credentials for master’s deg to
HR of Universidad
 Salary increased, Oct 04
 Re-ranked—assistant prof to associate prof
o Demanded salary increase retroact to Jun 03; demanded differentials
- Universidad: teachers not re-ranked during probationary pd || faculty manual 02-03: re-
ranking done every two yrs; personnel to hold present rank for two years. Those under
probationary pd and thos on part-time basis not covered by provision. Also in 00-01
Manual
- Sambajon: another teacher on probation was re-ranked, salary adjusted. Wai nat mi
- Dialogue:
o Sambajon: school shortened probationary pd to two years bc of satisfactory
performance
o Universidad: denied shortening but admitted made Associate Prof bc of
incessant requests for salary increase which school accommodated due to
degree in June 03
  Appointment as associate professor did not affect status as
probationary ee
- 2005 Feb, Sambajon received letter of termination
- Apr: LA: Sambajon: ill dism
o Sambajon ill dismissed. No just or authorized cause
- NLRC: Universidad: Sec 92, Manual of Regulations for Private Schools
o Affirmed. Sambajon permanent || 91, 92, 93 manual; 281, LC: allowed to work
after probationary period
o 92 merely provides for maximum length of probationary pd
- CA: affirmed. Reinstate Sambajon. Regular || last contract: no mention of probation
- SC:
o Sambajon still a probationary ee
 A probationary employee is one who is on trial by the employer during
which the employer determines whether or not said employee is
qualified for permanent employment. A probationary appointment is
made to afford the employer an opportunity to observe the fitness of a
probationary employee while at work, and to ascertain whether he will
become a proper and efficient employee. The word probationary as
used to describe the period of employment implies the purpose of the
term or period, but not its length
 No statutory cap on minimum term
 But maximum trial period set by law
o 92 Manual, Sec 92: probationary pd not more than six
consecutive regular semesters of satisfactory service
o 93: full-time teachers who have satisfactorily completed
probationary pd considered regular or permanent
 Here, Sambajon’s conracts:
o Nov 02-Mar 03
o Jun 03-Oct 03
o Feb 26 04: Nov 03-Mar 04
o Jun 04-Oct 04
o Nov 04-Mar 05
 Feb 26 contract did not indicate nature of appointment as
probationary but this does not mean that Sambajon no longer
on probation:
o “unless otherwise renewed in writing, this designation
automatically terminates as of the date of expiration
above states without further notice”
 + Sambajon letter: problem is that your good office has never
categorically resolved whether or not probationary teachers can
also be evaluated for salary adjustment. How pitiful are we,
probationary teachers
 Probationary pd not shortened by school, applied max 3 yr/6 sem pd
  Certificate of employment only shows Sambajon as full-time
faculty but no description of qualification of whether
employment regular or otherwise
 That Sambajon hired on semester basis does not negate
probationary period
o || Magis Young Achievers” common practice to enter
into annual contract. At end of year, er has option not
to renew, considering performance of teacher. If not
renewed, employment terminates
 But during this termination and renewal,
teacher remains under probation
 Probation does not end with every contract
 Conflict bet fixed-term and probationary employment more
apparent than real
o Within the period of the probation, any employer move
based on the probationary standards and affecting the
continuity of the employment must strictly conform to
the probationary rules
o Nothing illegitimate in defining school-teacher
relationship in fixed-term contracts || trimestral system
 Fixed-term contract conveniently used by
school to define and regulate relations with its
teachers during their probationary period
 But school to remember 281 LC
o In a situation where probationary status overlaps with
fixed-term contract not specifically used for the fixed
term it offers, 281 should assume primacy and fixed-pd
character of contract must give way
o Sambajon illegally dismissed
 Letter terminating Sambajon did not state just or authorized cause
o Sambajon entitled to continue probationary period, but bc of discordant
relations, backwages
o PARTLY GRANTED

b. Due process: ee should know how standards have been applied

Colegio del Santisimo Rosario, Zenaida Mofada, OP, v Emmanuel Rojo (2013, Del Castillo,
certiorari)

- Rojo hired
o As high school teacher
o On probation
o 92-93, 93-94, 94-95
- Colegio decided not to renew contract
- LA: Rojo: ill dism; served for three yrs
 o Colegio: not dismissed. Contract simply not renewed
 3 yrs: 36 mos, not sy; 3 sy = 10 mo each, therefore X 3 yrs
o 3 yrs = 3 sy = 10 mos
o Rojo regularized
o Colegio in bad faith
- NLRC: affirmed
- CA: affirmed. Rosario permanent: full-time; rendered three consecutive yrs of service;
service satisfactory. Expiry of contract not valid ground. No reasonable standards made
known at time of engagement; contracted as a regular ee. Therefore, illegally dismissed
- SC: Rojo illegally dismissed
 No vested right to permanent appointment shall accrue until ee has complete
prerequisite three-yr pd necessary for acquisition of permanent status. But mere
rendition of service for three consecutive yrs does not automatically ripen into
permanent appointment—necessary that
 Ee full-time teacher
 Services rendered satisfactory
 || Magis: at end of third yr, er may decide whether to extend permanent appointment
to ees, primarily on basis of ee having emt reasonable standards of competence and
efficiency set by er. For the entire duration of the 3-yr pd, teacher remains under
probation.
 Subj to 281 of LC: services of an employee who has been engaged on a
probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to
qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made
known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement ||
Mercado
 Sec 93, 92 Manual: full-time teachers who have satisfactorily complete their
probationary pd shall be considered regular or permanent
o For teachers on probationary employment, in which case a fixed term contract
is not specifically used for the fixed term it offers
 It is incumbent upon school to have not only set reasonable
standards to be followed by teacher in determining qualification
for regular employment
 But also that same communicated to teachers at the start of the
probationary pd, or at least, at start of pd when they were to be
applied
 Should teachers not have been apprised of such at such time,
deemed regular
 Here, no such evidence to show reasonable standards mentioned to
Rojo. Not in contract either
 Nor was there proof of alleged performance evaluations, basis of which
not presented either
 Absent showing of unsatisfactory performance || standards (inexistent),
Rojo presumed to have satisfactorily rendered work. Was already a
prefect of discipline for uncovering drug syndicate in school
o DENIED. CA affirmed.