Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > January 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 72222 January 30, 1989 - INT’L CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION v. NAT’L LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 72222. January 30, 1989.]

INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BERNADETTE GALANG, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


FERNAN, J.:


The issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or not an employee who was terminated during the probationary period of her employment is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of her six-month probationary employment.

The facts of the case are undisputed.

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 January 24, 1983 as a probationary cultural orientation teacher with a monthly salary of P2,000.00.

Three (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 thereat for a few days before leaving for Manila, during which time, she was observed by petitioner to be allegedly acting strangely.

On July 24, 1983, private respondent returned to Morong, Bataan on board the service bus of petitioner to accomplish the clearance requirements. In the evening of that same day, she was found at the Freedom Park of Morong wet and shivering from the rain and acting bizarrely. She was then taken to petitioner’s hospital where she was given the necessary medical attention.

Two (2) days later, or on July 26, 1983, she was taken to her residence in Manila aboard petitioner’s service bus. Thru a letter, her father expressed appreciation to petitioner for taking care of her daughter. On that same day, her father received, on her behalf, the proportionate amount of her 13th month pay and the equivalent of her two week pay.

On August 22, 1983, private respondent filed a complaint 1 for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and unpaid wages against petitioner with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment, praying for reinstatement with backwages, exemplary and moral damages.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

On October 8, 1983, after the parties submitted their respective position papers and other pleadings, Labor Arbiter Pelagio A. Carpio rendered his decision dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal as well as the complaint for moral and exemplary damages but ordering the petitioner to pay private respondent the sum of P6,000.00 as payment for the last three (3) months of the agreed employment period pursuant to her verbal contract of employment. 2

Both parties appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission. In her appeal, private respondent contended that her dismissal was illegal considering that it was effected without valid cause. On the other hand, petitioner countered that private respondent who was employed for a probationary period of three (3) months could not rightfully be awarded P6,000.00 because her services were terminated for failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards prescribed by her employer.

On August 22, 1985, the NLRC, by a majority vote of Commissioners Guillermo C. Medina and Gabriel M. Gatchalian, sustained the decision of the Labor Arbiter and thus dismissed both appeals for lack of merit. Commissioner Miguel Varela, on the other hand, dissented and voted for the reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s decision for lack of legal basis considering that the termination of services of complainant, now private respondent, was effected during her probationary period on valid grounds made known to her. 3

Dissatisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition.

Petitioner maintains that private respondent is not entitled to the award of salary for the unexpired three-month portion of the probationary period since her services were terminated during such period when she failed to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards prescribed by petitioner; that having been terminated on valid grounds during her probationary period, or specifically on April 24, 1983, petitioner is not liable to private respondent for services not rendered during the unexpired three-month period, otherwise, unjust enrichment of her part would result; that under Article 282 (now Article 261) of the Labor Code, if the employer finds that the probationary employees does not meet the standards of employment set for the position, the probationary employee may be terminated at any time within the six-month period, without need of exhausting said entire six-month term. 4

The Solicitor General, on the other hand, contends that a probationary employment for six (6) months, as in the case of herein private respondent, is an employment for a definite period of time and, as such, the employer is duty-bound to allow the probationary employee to work until the termination of the probationary employment before her re-employment could be refused; that when petitioner disrupted the probationary employment of private respondent, without giving her the opportunity to improve her method of instruction within the said period, it held itself liable to pay her salary for the unexpired portion of such employment by way of damages pursuant to the general provisions of civil law that he who in any manner contravenes the terms of his obligation without any valid cause shall be liable for damages; 5 that, as held in Madrigal v. Ogilvie, Et Al., 6 the damages so awarded are equivalent to her salary for the unexpired portion of her employment for a fixed period. 7

We find for Petitioner.

There is justifiable basis for the reversal of public respondent’s award of salary for the unexpired three-month portion of private respondent’s six-month probationary employment in the light of its express finding that there 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 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. 8 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 which provides thus:chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

"ART. 281. Probationary employment. — Probationary employment shall not exceed six months from the date the employee started working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an employee who has been engaged in 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. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee." (Emphasis supplied.)

It must be noted that notwithstanding the finding of legality of the termination of private respondent, public respondent justified the award of salary for the unexpired portion of the probationary employment on the ground that a probationary employment for six (6) months is an employment for a "definite period" which requires the employer to exhaust the entire probationary period to give the employee the opportunity to meet the required standards.

The legal basis of public respondent is erroneous. 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. 9 The word "probationary", as used to describe the period of employment, implies the purpose of the term or period, but not its length. 10

Being in the nature of a "trial period" 11 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. While the employer, as stated earlier, observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment, the probationer, on the other, seeks to prove to the employer, that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for permanent employment.

It is well settled that the employer has the right or is at liberty to choose who will be hired and who will be denied employment. In that sense, it is within the exercise of the right to select his employees that the employer may set or fix a probationary period within which the latter may test and observe the conduct of the former before hiring him permanently. The equality of right that exists between the employer and the employee as to the nature of the probationary employment was aptly emphasized by this Court in Grand Motor Parts Corporation v. Minister of Labor, Et Al., 130 SCRA 436 (1984), citing the 1939 case of Pampanga Bus. Co., Inc. v. Pambusco Employees Union, Inc. 68 Phil. 541, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The right of a laborer to sell his labor to such persons as he may choose is, in its essence, the same as the right of an employer to purchase labor from any person whom it chooses. The employer and the employee have thus an equality of right guaranteed by the Constitution. If the employer can compel the employee to work against the latter’s will, this is servitude. If the employee can compel the employer to give him work against the employer’s will, this is oppression."cralaw virtua1aw library

As the law now stands, Article 281 of the Labor Code gives ample authority to the employer to terminate a probationary employee 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. There is nothing under Article 281 of the Labor Code that would preclude the employer from extending a regular or a permanent appointment to an employee once the employer finds that the employee is qualified for regular employment even before the expiration of the probationary period. Conversely, if the purpose sought by the employer is neither attained nor attainable within the said period, Article 281 of the Labor Code does not likewise preclude the employer from terminating the probationary employment on justifiable causes as in the instant case.

We find unmeritorious, therefore, public respondent’s argument that the security of tenure of probationary employees within the period of their probation, as in the case of herein private respondent, justified the award of salary for the unexpired portion of her probationary employment. The termination of private respondent predicated on a just cause negates the application in this case of the pronouncement in the case of Biboso v. Victorias Milling Co., Inc., 12 on the right of security of tenure of probationary employees.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Upon inquiry by the then Ministry of Labor and Employment as a consequence of the illegal dismissal case filed by private respondent before it, docketed as Case No. NLRC NCR-8-3786-83, it was found that there was no illegal dismissal involved in the case, hence, the circumvention of the rights of the probationary employees sought to be regulated as pointed out in Biboso v. Victorias Milling Co., Inc., 13 is wanting.

There was no showing, as borne out by the records, that there was circumvention of the rights of private respondent when she was informed of her termination. Her dismissal does not appear to us as arbitrary, fanciful or whimsical. Private respondent was duly notified, orally and in writing, that her services as cultural orientation teacher were terminated for failure to meet the prescribed standards of petitioner as reflected in the performance evaluation conducted by her supervisors during the teacher evaluating program. The dissatisfaction of petitioner over the performance of private respondent in this regard is a legitimate exercise of its prerogative to select whom to hire or refuse employment for the success of its program or undertaking. More importantly, private respondent failed to show that there was unlawful discrimination in the dismissal.

It was thus a grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent to order petitioner to pay private respondent her salary for the unexpired three-month portion of her six-month probationary employment when she was validly terminated during her probationary employment. To sanction such action would not only be unjust, but oppressive on the part of the employer as emphasized in Pampanga Bus Co., Inc., v. Pambusco Employer Union, Inc. 14

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated August 22, 1985, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as it ordered petitioner to pay private respondent her P6,000.00 salary for the unexpired portion of her six-month probationary employment. No cost.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Records, p. 1.

2. Records, p. 93.

3. Rollo, pp. 9-12.

4. Rollo, pp. 43-45.

5. Article 1170 of the Civil Code.

6. 104 Phil. 749.

7. Rollo, pp. 29-36.

8. Annexes "A", "A-1 to A-5" ; "B", Records, pp. 21-27.

9. 34 Words and Phrases 113, citing 53 P.S. s9370, 9377; McCartney v. Johnston, 191 A. 121, 124, 326 Pa. 442.

10. Id., at 115, citing People v. Kearney, 58 N.E. 14, 15, 164 N.Y. 64.

11. Id., at 114, citing Application of Williams, 150 N.Y.S. 2d 420, 423, 1 Misc. 2d 804.

12. 76 SCRA 250 (1977).

13. Supra.

14. Supra.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 78315 January 2, 1989 - COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 72806 January 9, 1989 - EPIFANIO CRUZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLANT COURT

  • G.R. No. L-74806 January 9, 1989 - SM AGRI AND GENERAL MACHINERIES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 76761 January 9, 1989 - ASST. EXECUTIVE SEC. FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 77959 January 9, 1989 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILS. v. SEC. OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. Nos. 79123-25 January 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMELIANO TRINIDAD

  • G.R. No. 78169 January 12, 1989 - BIBIANO REYNOSO IV v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORP.

  • G.R. No. 43862 January 13, 1989 - MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO. v. FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO.

  • G.R. No. 47425 January 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. METODIO S. BASIGA

  • G.R. No. 51554 January 13, 1989 - TROPICAL HOMES, INC. v. WILLELMO C. FORTUN

  • G.R. No. 53955 January 13, 1989 - MANILA BANKING CORP. v. ANASTACIO TEODORO JR.

  • G.R. No. 54330 January 13, 1989 - JULIO E. T. SALES v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 66712 January 13, 1989 - CALIXTO ANGEL v. PONCIANO C. INOPIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 66865 January 13, 1989 - MAGTANGGOL QUE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74047 January 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GRACIANO E. GENEVEZA

  • G.R. No. 75016 January 13, 1989 - PERLA C. BAUTISTA v. BOARD OF ENERGY

  • G.R. No. 76592 January 13, 1989 - ERDULFO C. BOISER v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 77298 January 13, 1989 - ANGELES CENTINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79518 January 13, 1989 - REBECCA C. YOUNG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 36187 January 17, 1989 - REYNOLDS PHILIPPINE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 73835 January 17, 1989 - CHINA AIRLINES, LTD. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 33425 January 20, 1989 - PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHIL. MFG. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 42278 January 20, 1989 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 48008 January 20, 1989 - BARTOLOME MACARAEG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 49739 January 20, 1989 - BONIFACIO LOPEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 55457 January 20, 1989 - FILOMENO QUILLIAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 61167-68 January 20, 1989 - FIDEL A. DE GUZMAN v. THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF FRANCISCO BENITEZ

  • G.R. No. 66350 January 20, 1989 - ALBERTO DE GUZMAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 67115 January 20, 1989 - FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74249 January 20, 1989 - CORNELIO T. RIVERA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74679 January 20, 1989 - ROSITA DE ASIS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78524 January 20, 1989 - PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 83616 January 20, 1989 - INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 72306 January 24, 1989 - DAVID P. FORNILDA v. BRANCH 164, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG

  • G.R. No. 78648 January 24, 1989 - RAFAEL N. NUNAL v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83882 January 24, 1989 - IN RE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF WILLIE YU v. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO

  • A.C. No. 3277 January 24, 1989 - DAVID P. FORNILDA v. BRANCH 164, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG

  • G.R. No. 33955 January 26, 1989 - FORTUNATO DA. BONDOC v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. 34613 January 26, 1989 - ANTONIO J. CASTRO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 40778 January 26, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCILLO MANLOLO

  • G.R. Nos. 44715-16 January 26, 1989 - ERLINDA BARRERAS v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 49410 January 26, 1989 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 51214 January 26, 1989 - EDGARDO DORUELO v. MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE

  • G.R. No. 66807 January 26, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MELITONA ALAGAD

  • G.R. No. 74246 January 26, 1989 - MARIWASA MANUFACTURING, INC. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 75079 January 26, 1989 - SOLEMNIDAD M. BUAYA v. WENCESLAO M. POLO

  • G.R. No. 75256 January 26, 1989 - JOHN PHILIP GUEVARRA v. IGNACIO ALMODOVAR

  • G.R. No. 75439 January 26, 1989 - SILVINO P. PIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79347 January 26, 1989 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. PURA FERRER CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 80680 January 26, 1989 - DANILO B. TABAS v. CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 81816 January 26, 1989 - NATIVIDAD Q. SALOMON v. NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION

  • A.M. No. R-225-RTJ January 26, 1989 - HIMINIANO D. SILVA v. GERMAN G. LEE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 29541 January 27, 1989 - CARLOS GABILA v. PABLO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 47027 January 27, 1989 - BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50041 January 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO L. ABONADA

  • G.R. No. 56457 January 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO PEDROSA

  • G.R. No. 56524 January 24, 1989 - RAMON ARENAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79404 January 27, 1989 - FELICIANO BEJER v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79955 January 27, 1989 - NELSON L. CERVANTES v. GINA C. FAJARDO

  • G.R. No. 29184 January 30, 1989 - BENEDICTO LEVISTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 37704 January 30, 1989 - ERLINDA TALAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 44466 January 30, 1989 - MAGDALENA V. ACOSTA v. ANDRES B. PLAN

  • G.R. No. 70149 January 30, 1989 - EUSEBIO C. LU v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 72222 January 30, 1989 - INT’L CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION v. NAT’L LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 74423 January 30, 1989 - EUSTAQUIO BAEL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78298 January 30, 1989 - WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 42808 January 31, 1989 - ROSARIO VDA. DE SUANES v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 43602 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO PAILANO

  • G.R. No. 46807 January 31, 1989 - MAURO OMANA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 48066 January 31, 1989 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. KALAHI INVESTMENTS, INC.

  • G.R. No. 56705 January 31, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. PROCTER AND GAMBLE PHIL. MFG CORP.

  • G.R. No. 58797 January 31, 1989 - ANTONIO QUIRINO v. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE

  • G.R. Nos. 65345-47 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMENEGILDO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. Nos. 66178-79 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN PELOTIN

  • G.R. No. 70446 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 70926 January 31, 1989 - DAN FUE LEUNG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 72828 January 31, 1989 - ESTELITA S. MONZON v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73886 January 31, 1989 - JOHN C. QUIRANTE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73913 January 31, 1989 - JERRY T. MOLES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 75082 January 31, 1989 - JOSE F. PUZON v. ALEJANDRA ABELLERA

  • G.R. No. 75853 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES BUGTONG

  • G.R. No. 76988 January 31, 1989 - GENERAL RUBBER AND FOOTWEAR CORP. v. FRANKLIN DRILON

  • G.R. No. 77116 January 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND CAMALOG

  • G.R. No. 78687 January 31, 1989 - ELENA SALENILLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79570 January 31, 1989 - GASPAR MEDIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80447 January 31, 1989 - BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 83268 January 31, 1989 - JOSEFINA B. CALLANGAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 84423 January 31, 1989 - JOSE B. NAVARRO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. P-88-181 January 31, 1989 - ROBERTO S. CHIONGSON v. MATEO MAGBANUA