Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
206
207
1/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
Considering that the CAs findings of fact clash with those of the
Voluntary Arbitrator, this Court is compelled to go over the
records of the case, as well as the submissions of the parties.
Same Probationary Employees An employer, in the exercise of
its management prerogative, may hire an employee on a
probationary basis in order to determine his fitness to perform
work.Indeed, an employer, in the exercise of its management
prerogative, may hire an employee on a probationary basis in
order to determine his fitness to perform work. Under Article 281
of the Labor Code, the employer must inform the employee of the
standards for which his employment may be considered for
regularization. Such probationary period, unless covered by an
apprenticeship agreement, shall not exceed six (6) months from
the date the employee started working. The employees services
may be terminated for just cause or for his failure to qualify as a
regular employee based on reasonable standards made known to
him.
Same Same Applying Article 13 of the Civil Code, the
probationary period of six (6) months consists of one hundred
eighty (180) days.Applying Article 13 of the Civil Code, the
probationary period of six (6) months consists of one hundred
eighty (180) days. This is in conformity with paragraph one,
Article 13 of the Civil Code, which provides that the months
which are not designated by their names shall be understood as
consisting of thirty (30) days each. The number of months in the
probationary period, six (6), should then be multiplied by the
number of days within a month, thirty (30) hence, the period of
one hundred eighty (180) days. As clearly provided for in the last
paragraph of Article 13, in computing a period, the first day shall
be excluded and the last day included. Thus, the one hundred
eighty (180) days commenced on May 27, 1996, and ended on
November 23, 1996. The termination letter dated November 25,
1996 was served on respondent Paras only at 3:00 a.m. of
November 26, 1996. He was, by then, already a regular employee
of the petitioner under Article 281 of the Labor Code.
Same Same Words and Phrases An unsatisfactory rating
can be a just cause for dismissal only if it amounts to gross and
habitual neglect of duties Gross negligence has been defined to be
the want or absence of even slight
208
208
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015268ae61623668ff25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
2/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
3/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
209
4/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
CA Rollo, p. 191.
Id., at p. 192.
210
5/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
CA Rollo, p. 192A.
Rollo, p. 126.
Department Managers.
10
11
Rollo, p. 51.
12
Id., at p. 52.
13
CA Rollo, p. 131.
211
211
6/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
Id., at p. 7.
15
Rollo, p. 134.
212
212
7/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015268ae61623668ff25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
8/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
213
9/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
_______________
17
Id., at p. 19.
18
Id., at p. 24.
214
214
10/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
215
11/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
B.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED
IN ORDERING THE REINSTATEMENT OF PARAS WITH
FULL BACKWAGES DESPITE THE CHANGE IN THE
FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COMPANY.
C.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED
IN HOLDING THAT THE SIXMONTH PROBATIONARY
PERIOD OF PARAS WHICH STARTED
ON 27 MAY 1996 HAD
21
EXPIRED 23 NOVEMBER 1996.
CA Rollo, p. 385.
21
216
= 4 days
Jun(e) 130
July 131
Aug(.) 131
Sept(.) 130
Oct(.) 131
Nov(.) 126
= 26 days
22
12/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
Id., at p. 27.
217
217
The Issues
The issues for resolution are the following: (a) whether or
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015268ae61623668ff25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
13/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
24
25
(1998).
28
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015268ae61623668ff25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
14/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
218
Regularization of Employment
Indeed, an employer, in the exercise of its management
prerogative, may hire an employee on a probationary
basis
29
in order to determine his fitness to perform work. Under
Article 281 of the Labor Code, the employer must inform
the employee of the standards for which his employment
may be considered for regularization. Such probationary
period, unless covered by an apprenticeship agreement,
shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee
started working. The employees services may be
terminated for just cause or for his failure to qualify as a
regular employee
based on reasonable standards made
30
known to him.
Respondent Paras was employed as a management
trainee on a probationary basis. During the orientation
conducted on May 15, 1996, he was apprised of the
standards upon which his regularization would be based.
He reported for work on May 27, 1996. As per the
companys policy, the probationary period was from three
(3) months to a maximum of six (6) months.
31
Applying Article 13 of the Civil Code, the probationary
period of six
(6) months consists of one hundred eighty
32
(180) days. This is in conformity with paragraph one,
Article 13 of the Civil Code, which provides that the
months which are not designated by their names shall be
understood as consisting of thirty (30) days each. The
number of months in the probationary period, six (6),
should then be multiplied by the number of days within a
month, thirty (30) hence, the period of one hundred eighty
(180) days.
_______________
29
(1995).
30
31
Article 13. When the law speaks of years, months, days or nights, it
shall be understood that years are of three hundred sixtyfive days each
months, of thirty days days, of twentyfour hours and nights from sunset
to sunrise.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015268ae61623668ff25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
15/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
(1999).
219
219
34
16/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
35
supra.
220
220
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015268ae61623668ff25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
to his development as a person and employee.
17/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
37
38
Id., at p. 24.
221
221
normal
consequences
of
illegal
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015268ae61623668ff25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
dismissal
are
18/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
Natividad, G.R. No. 152568 February 16, 2004, 423 SCRA 122 Procter
and Gamble Philippines v. Edgardo Bondesto, G.R. No. 139847, March 5,
2004, 425 SCRA 1.
222
222
did not raise the same in its comment to the petition. The
petitioner asserted the matter only in its October 20, 2000
motion for reconsideration of the decision of the CA, where
it alleged that the retrenchment program was effected to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015268ae61623668ff25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
19/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
Ibid.
42
43
Rollo, p. 56.
44
Id., at p. 83.
45
Id., at p. 55.
46
Id., at p. 82.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015268ae61623668ff25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
20/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
223
223
21/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
47
Id., at p. 55.
48
Id., at p. 82.
49
Id., at p. 55.
50
Supra.
51
Id., at p. 82.
52
53
Id., at p. 70.
54
224
22/23
1/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME433
modifica tions.
Notes.It is an elementary rule in the law on labor
relations that even a probationary employee is entitled to
security of tenure. (Sameer Overseas Placement Agency,
Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 317 SCRA
120 [1999]).
While probationary employees do not enjoy permanent
status, they are entitled to the constitutional protection of
security of tenure. (Secon Philippines, Ltd. vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, 319 SCRA 685 [1999])
o0o
_______________
55
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015268ae61623668ff25003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
23/23