Moises De Leon vs.

NLRC
Facts:
 Moises De Leon worked at La Tondeña
Inc., which is engaged in the business
of manufacturing and distillery of wines
and liquors
 De Leon paints company building and
other jobs relating to maintenance at
the Maintenance Section of its
Engineering Department in Tondo,
Manila.
 De Leon was paid on a daily basis
through petty cash vouchers
 With more than 1 year service in the
company, De Leon requested to be
included in the payroll of regular
workers so that he will not be paid
through petty cash voucher anymore.
 However, La Tondeña’s response to his
request was to dismiss De Leon from
his employment.
 The weeks after his dismissal, he was
re-hired and with the same tasks he
used to do
 He was rehired by the company
indirectly through the Vitas-Magsaysay
Village Livelihood Council, which is an
agency of La Tondeña’s company.

La Tondeña’s Contention
 De Leon was hired only as a painter to
repaint a building at Tondo compound,
to which they contended that painting
is not their main business
 La Tondeña’s also claim that De Leon
was informed that he would only be
engaged on a casual basis
 That his salary was never paid through
a regular payroll but always through
petty cash vouchers
LA RULING:
- De Leon is a regular employee and
was not a mere casual employee.
- Labor Arbiter also contended that the
dismissal of De Leon by La Tondeña
is an attempt to circumvent the legal
obligations of an employer towards a
regular employee
- And being hired on a casual basis will
not alter the fact that his job which is
painting the building and when he had
no painting to do he is tasked to work
to maintenance.
- That his job is a necessity and
desirable operation of the business
company
NLRC RULING
- LA was reversed by the First Division
of the National Labor Relations
Commission

ISSUE:
WON De Leon was merely a casual
employee?

HELD:
 According to Article 218 of the Labor
Code, an employment is deemed
regular when the employee’s job is
necessary in the usual business.
 That the so-called “project
employment” are not considered as
regular employment
 The particular activity performed by the
employee in relation to the usual
business or trade of the employer is a
primary standard of determining a
regular employment
 Also, an employee who rendered at
least a year of service to the company,
whether continuous or not, is deemed
regular with respect to the activity he
performed and while such activity
actually exits
 In this case, La Tondeña the records
reveal that De Leon is not only tasked
to do painting buildings but also
cleaning and oiling machines and other
jobs when he has no painting job.
 He also served for more than a year in
the company.
 This was attested by the regular
employee of the company.
 Therefore, Moises De Leon became
regular maintenance man and the
company is to pay petitioner his
backwages, ECOLA, and 13th month
pay.

MAGSALIN vs. NATIONAL

ORGANIZATION OF WORKING
MEN
Facts:
 Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc.
(petitioner) engaged the services of
respondent workers as “sales route
helpers” for a limited period of 5
months.
 Then after 5 months, the respondent
workers were employed by Coca-Cola
Bottlers Phils. Inc. on a day-to-day
basis.
 According to the petitioner, the
respondents were merely hired as
substitutes for regular helpers when
the latter were unavailable or due to
shortage of manpower/high volume of
work.
 These workers would then wait every
morning outside the gates and if hired,
they would be paid their wages at the
end of the day.

 The respondents asked the petitioner to

make them regular, but the latter
refused.

 Hence, 23 of these temporary workers

filed a notice of strike and a complaint
for illegal dismissal and unfair labor
practice with the National Labor
Relation Commission.
 As the controversy submitted to the
voluntary arbitration, the VA dismissed
the complaint on the ground that the
respondent workers were not
employees of Coca-cola.

ISSUE:
WON the nature of work of respondents in
the company is necessary and desirable in
the usual business of petitioner?

HELD:
 The Supreme Court held that the
nature of work of respondent workers
are necessary and desirable in the
usual business of Coca-Cola Bottlers
Phils., Inc and they are considered as
regular employees.
 The applicable test to determine
whether an employment should be
considered regular is when there is a
reasonable connection between the
activity of the employee and the usual
business or trade of the employer.
 In this case, respondent workers would
go with route salesmen on board
delivery truck and have a hard task of
loading and unloading the softdrink
products to its delivery points.

Coca-Cola Bottlers’ Phils., Inc

contention:
- Coca-Cola Bottlers’ Phils. argues that
the usual business or trade is
softdrink manufacturing and the work
done by the respondent workers as a
sales route helpers is only considered
as “postproduction activities” which is
not indispensable in the
manufacturing of its products – to
which their contention is not tenable
 Also it is shown that the repeated
rehiring of respondent workers and the
continuing need for their services
clearly attest to the necessity or
desirability of their services in the
regular conduct of the business or
trade of petitioner company

Canadian Opportunities
Unlimited, Inc., vs. Dalangin, Jr.
Facts:
 Dalangin was hired by the company in
October 2001, as Immigration and
Legal Manager, with a monthly salary
of P15,000.00.
 He was placed on probation for six
months.
 He was to report directly to the Chief
Operations Officer, Annie Llamanzares
Abad.
 His tasks involved principally the
review of the clients applications for
immigration to Canada to ensure that
they are in accordance with Canadian
and Philippine laws.
 Through a memorandum signed by
Abad, the company terminated
Dalangins employment, declaring him
"unfit" and "unqualified" to continue as
Immigration and Legal Manager.
 The following are the reasons for
Dalangins termination:
- Obstinacy and utter disregard of
company policies
 - Lack of concern for the company's
interest despite having just been
employed in the company
- lack of enthusiasm toward work, and
- lack of interest in fostering
relationship with his co-employees.
 Labor Arbiter Eduardo G. Magno
declared Dalangins dismissal illegal.
 On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA
decision.

 Dalangin moved for reconsideration,

but the NLRC denied the motion,
prompting him to go to the CA on a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court.

 In its decision, the CA reversed the

NLRC ruling. As the labor arbiter did,
the CA found that the company failed
to support, with substantial evidence,
its claim that Dalangin failed to meet
the standards to qualify as a regular
employee.

 The CA denied the company's

subsequent motion for reconsideration
in its. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not Dalangin was

validly dismissed

HELD:
 In International Catholic Migration
Commission v. NLRC, the Court
explained that a probationary
employee, as understood under Article
281 of the Labor Code, is one who is on
trial by an employer, during which, the
latter determines whether or not he is
qualified for permanent employment.

 A probationary appointment gives the

employer an opportunity to observe the
fitness of a probationer while at work,
and to ascertain whether he would be a
proper and efficient employee.

 Dalangin was barely a month on the

job when the company terminated his
employment.

 He was found wanting in qualities that

would make him a "proper and
efficient" employee or, as the company
put it, he was unfit and unqualified to
continue as its Immigration and Legal
Manager.

 The CA did not believe that the

company could fully assess Dalangins
performance within a month. It viewed
Dalangins dismissal as arbitrary,
considering that the company had very
little time to determine his fitness for
the job.

 Contrary to the CAs conclusions, we

find substantial evidence indicating that
the company was justified in
 terminating Dalangins employment,
however brief it had been.

 Time and again, we have emphasized

that substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.

 Dalangin overlooks the fact, wittingly or

unwittingly, that he offered glimpses of
his own behavior and actuations during
his four-week stay with the company;
he betrayed his negative attitude and
regard for the company, his co-
employees and his work.

 Dalangin admitted in compulsory

arbitration that the proximate cause for
his dismissal was his refusal to attend
the company's "Values Formation
Seminar" scheduled for October 27,
2001, a Saturday.

 He refused to attend the seminar after

he learned that it had no relation to his
duties, as he claimed, and that he had
to leave at 2:00 p.m. because he
wanted to be with his family in the
province.

 When Abad insisted that he attend the

seminar to encourage his co-employees
to attend, he stood pat on not
attending, arguing that marked
differences exist between their
positions and duties, and insinuating
 that he did not want to join the other
employees.

 He also questioned the scheduled 2:00

p.m. seminars on Saturdays as they
were not supposed to be doing a
company activity beyond 2:00 p.m.

 The "Values Formation Seminar"

incident is an eye-opener on the kind of
person and employee Dalangin was.
The incident also reveals Dalangins lack
of interest in establishing good working
relationship with his co-employees,
especially the rank and file; he did not
want to join them because of his view
that the seminar was not relevant to
his position and duties.

 Additionally, very early in his

employment, Dalangin exhibited
negative working habits, particularly
with respect to the one-hour lunch
break policy of the company and the
observance of the company’s working
hours.

 However, since the company failed to

observe the required due process in
terminating probationary employees,
Dalangin is entitled to nominal
damages.

 GRANTED

Aliling vs. Feliciano

FACTS:
 Respondent Wide Wide World Express
Corporation (WWWEC) offered to
employ petitioner Armando Aliling on
June 2, 2004 as “Account Executive
(Seafreight Sales),”

 with a compensation package of a

monthly salary of PhP 13,000

- transportation allowance of
PhP3,000,
- clothing allowance of PhP 800,
- cost of living allowance of PhP 500,
each payable on a per month basis
and
- a 14thmonth pay

 depending on the profitability and

availability of financial resources of
the company.

 The offer came with a six (6) month

probation period condition with this
express caveat: “Performance during
probationary period shall be made as
basis for confirmation to Regular or
Permanent Status.”

 On June 11, 2004, Aliling and

WWWEC inked an Employment
Contract under the terms of
conversion to regular status shall be
determined on the basis of work
performance; and employment
services may, at any time, be
terminated for just cause or in
accordance with the standards
defined at the time of engagement.
 However, instead of a Seafreight Sale
assignment, WWWEC asked Aliling to
handle Ground Express (GX), a new
company product launched on June
18, 2004 involving domestic cargo
forwarding service for Luzon.
Marketing this product and finding
daily contracts for it formed the core
of Aliling’s new assignment.
 A month after, Manuel F. San Mateo
III (San Mateo), WWWEC Sales and
Marketing Director, emailed Aliling to
express dissatisfaction with the
latter’s performance.

 On September 25, 2004, Joseph R.

Lariosa (Lariosa), Human Resources
Manager of WWWEC, asked Aliling to
report to the Human Resources
Department to explain his absence
taken without leave from September
20, 2004.

 Aliling responded two days later. He

denied being absent on the days in
question, attaching to his reply letter
a copy of his timesheet which showed
that he worked from September 20 to
24, 2004.

 Aliling’s explanation came with a

query regarding the withholding of his
salary corresponding to September 11
to 25, 2004.

 On October 15, 2004, Aliling tendered

his resignation to San Mateo.

 While WWWEC took no action on his

tender, Aliling nonetheless demanded
 reinstatement and a written apology,
claiming in a subsequent letter dated
October 1, 2004 to management that
San Mateo had forced him to resign.

 Lariosa’s response letter of October 1,

2004, informed Aliling that his case
was still in the process of being
evaluated

 On October 6, 2004, Lariosa again

wrote, this time to advise Aliling of
the termination of his services
effective as of that date owing to his
“non satisfactory performance” during
his probationary period. Records show
that Aliling, for the period indicated,
was paid his outstanding salary.

 However, or on October 4, 2004,

Aliling filed a Complaint for illegal
dismissal due to forced resignation,
nonpayment of salaries as well as
damages with the NLRC against
WWWEC.

 Appended to the complaint was

Aliling’s Affidavit dated November 12,
2004,in which he stated:
“At the time of my engagement,
respondents did not make known
to me the standards under which
I will qualify as a regular
employee.”

 Refuting Aliling’s basic posture,

WWWEC stated that in the letter offer
and employment contract adverted
to, WWWEC and Aliling have signed a
letter of appointment on June 11,
 2004 containing the terms of
engagement. WWWEC also attached
to its Position Paper a memo dated
September 20, 2004 in which San
Mateo asked Aliling to explain why he
should not be terminated for failure to
meet the expected job performance,
considering that the load factor for
the GX Shuttles for the period July to
September was only 0.18% as
opposed to the allegedly agreed upon
load of 80% targeted for August 5,
2004.

 According to WWWEC, Aliling, instead

of explaining himself, simply
submitted a resignation letter.

 On April 25, 2006, the Labor Arbiter

issued a decision declaring that the
grounds upon which complainant’s
dismissal was based did not conform
not only the standard but also the
compliance required under Article 281
of the Labor Code, Necessarily,
complainant’s termination is not
justified for failure to comply with the
mandate the law requires.
Respondents should be ordered to
pay salaries corresponding to the
unexpired portion of the contract of
employment and all other benefits
amounting to a total of P35,811.00
covering the period from October 6 to
December 7, 2004.

 The Labor Arbiter explained that

Aliling cannot be validly terminated
for non-compliance with the quota
threshold absent a prior advisory of
 the reasonable standards upon which
his performance would be evaluated.

 Both parties appealed the decision to

the NLRC, which affirmed the decision
of the Labor Arbiter. The separate
motions for reconsideration were also
denied by the NLRC.

 The case was appealed to the CA and

its assailed action on the strength of
the following premises:

 respondents failed to prove

that Aliling’s dismal
performance constituted
gross and habitual neglect
necessary to justify his
dismissal;

 not having been informed at

the time of his engagement
of the reasonable standards
under which he will qualify as
a regular employee, Aliling
was deemed to have been
hired from day one as a
regular employee; and

 the strained relationship

existing between the parties
argues against the propriety
of reinstatement.
Issues
 Whether or not the petitioner is a
regular employee

 Whether or not the petitioner was

illegally dismissed
  If illegally dismissed, whether or not
he is entitled of reinstatement

 Whether or not the petitioner is

entitled to backwages and separation
pay in lieu of reinstatement

Ruling

 The Petition was partially granted and

the decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA - G.R. SP No. 101309 is modified.

 Respondent Wide Wide World Express

Corp. is liable to pay Armando Aliling
the following:

 Back wages reckoned from

October 6, 2004 up to the finality
of this Decision based on a salary
of PhP 17,300 a month, with
interest at 6% per annum on the
principal amount from October 6,
2004 until fully paid;

 Additional sum equivalent to one

(1) month salary for every year
of service, with a fraction of at
least six (6) months considered
as one whole year based on the
period from June 11, 2004 (date
of employment contract) until the
finality of this Decision, as
separation pay;

 PhP 30,000 as nominal damages;

and Attorney’s Fees equivalent to
10% of the total award.
  The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
in a petition for review on certiorari is
limited to reviewing only errors of
law, not of fact, unless the factual
findings being assailed are not
supported by evidence on record or
the impugned judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts.

 On the issue of the petitioner if he is

a probationary or regular employee,
the Court upheld the CA’s decision.
Respondents further allege that San
Mateos email dated July 16, 2004
shows that the standards for his
regularization were made known to
petitioner Aliling at the time of his
engagement. The aforequoted Section 6 of
the Implementing Rules of Book VI, Rule
VIII-A of the Code specifically requires the
employer to inform the probationary
employee of such reasonable
standards at the time of his engagement,
not at any time later; else, the latter shall
be considered a regular employee. Thus,
petitioner Aliling is deemed a regular
employee as of June 11, 2004, the date of
his employment contract.

 The Court confirmed that petitioner

was illegally dismissed. Respondent
WWWEC miserably failed to prove the
termination of petitioner was for a
just cause nor was there substantial
evidence to demonstrate the
standards were made known to the
latter at the time of his engagement.
This is also shown when the
respondents failed to provide due
 process the petitioner regarding his
termination from employment.
 Hence, petitioner’s right to security of
tenure was breached thus he was
illegally dismissed.

 The petitioner is entitled to separation

pay in lieu of reinstatement on the
ground of strained relationship.

 As the CA correctly observed, to

reinstate petitioner would only create
an atmosphere of antagonism and
distrust, more so that he had only a
short stint with respondent company.
The Court need not belabor the fact
that the patent animosity that had
developed between employer and
employee generated what may be
considered as the arbitrary dismissal
of the petitioner.

Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. vs. Leon

Magtibay, Jr.
Facts:
 The Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI)
hired Magtibay, on contractual basis, to
assist, for a period of 5 months, the
regular phone operator.
 After the expiration of Magtibay’s
contractual employment, PDI
announced the creation and
availability of a new position for a
2nd telephone operator who would
undergo probationary employment.
 After the usual interview for the
2nd telephone operator slot, PDI
chose to hire Magtibay on a
 probationary basis for a period of 6
months. The signing of a written
contract of employment followed.
 A week before the end the
agreed 6-month probationary period,
PDI officer handed Magtibay his
termination paper, grounded on his
alleged failure to meet company
standards.
 Aggrieved, Magtibay immediately
filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and damages before the LA.

PDI’s contention:
 PDI, for its part, denied all the
factual allegations of Magtibay,
adding that his previous contractual
employment was validly terminated
upon the expiration of the period
stated therein.

 Pressing the point, PDI alleged

that the period covered by the
contractual employment cannot be
counted with or tacked to the period for
probation, inasmuch as there is no
basis to consider Magtibay a regular
employee.

Labor Arbiter:
 Labor Arbiter found for PDI and
accordingly dismissed Magtibay’s
complaint for illegal dismissal.
 Also declared as binding the
stipulation in the contract specifying
a fixed period of employment.
 That Magtibay’s previous contractual
employment, as later extended by 15
days, cannot be considered as part of
his subsequent probationary
employment.
NLRC:
 According to the NLRC, Magtibay’s
probationary employment had ripened
into a regular one.
Whereas the Court of Appeals:
 Affirmed the ruling of NLRC

ISSUE:
WON Magtibay is a probationary
employee of petitioner.

RULING:
 YES. A probationary employee, as
understood under Article 282 (now
Article 281) of the Labor Code, is one
who is on trial by an employer
during which the employer
determines whether or not he is
qualified for permanent employment.

 A probationary appointment is made to

afford the employer an opportunity to
observe the fitness of a probationer
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

 Therefore, being in the nature of a

"trial period" the essence of a
probationary period of employment
fundamentally lies in the purpose or
objective sought to be attained by both
the employer and the employee during
said period.

 The length of time is immaterial in

determining the correlative rights of
both in dealing with each other during
said period.

 Wherefore, The court find sufficient

factual and legal basis, duly
established by substantial evidence,
for PDI to legally terminate Magtibay’s
probationary employment effective
upon the end of the 6-month
probationary period.

International Catholic Migration

Commission vs. National Labor
Relations Commission and Bernadette
Galang
Facts:
 Petitioner International Catholic
Migration Commission (ICMC), a
 non-profit organization dedicated to
refugee service at the Philippine
Refugee Processing Center in Morong,
Bataan engaged the services of private
respondent Bernadette Galang on
January24, 1983 as a probationary
cultural orientation teacher with a
family salary of P2,000.00.

 3 months thereafter, or on April 22,

1983, private respondent was
informed, orally and in writing, that
her services were being
terminated for her failure to
meet the prescribed standards of
petitioner as reflected in the
performance evaluation of her
supervisors during the teacher
evaluation program she underwent
along with other newly-hired personnel.

 Despite her termination, records show

that private respondent did not leave
the ICMC refugee camp at Morong,
Bataan, but instead stayed for a few
days before leaving for Manila, during
which time, she was observed by
petitioner to be allegedly acting
strangely.

 2 days later, or on July 26, 1983, she

was taken to her residence in Manila
abroad petitioners’ service bus. Thru a
letter, her father expressed
appreciation to petitioner for taking
care of her daughter.
 On the same day, her father received,
on her behalf, the proportionate
amount of her 13th month pay and
equivalent of her two week pay.

 On August 22, 1983, private

respondent filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, unfair labor practice and
unpaid wages against petitioner
with the then Ministry of Labor
and Employment, praying for
reinstatement with back wages,
exemplary and moral damages

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent [Bernadette
Galang] was legally dismissed

RULING:
 There is justifiable basis for the
reversal of public respondent’s award
of salary for unexpired 3 months
period portion of private
respondent six-month probationary
employment in the light of its express
finding that here was no illegal
dismissal.

 There is no dispute that private

respondent was terminated during her
probationary period of employment for
failure to qualify as a regular member
 terminated during her probationary
period of employment for failure to
qualify as a regular member of
petitioner’s teaching staff in accordance
with its reasonable standards.

 Records show that private respondent

was found by petitioner to be
deficient in classroom
management, teacher-student
relationship and teaching
techniques.

 Failure to qualify as a regular

employee in accordance with the
reasonable standards of the employer
is a just cause for terminating a
probationary employee specifically
recognized under Article 282 (now
Article 281) of the labor Code.