Answers to Labor Standards Quiz No.

Tuesday Class

As counsel for Nissen Philippines, how would you defend the legality of the
dismissal?

As a counsel for Nissen Philippines, I would argue that Giskard’s contention in this
case is untenable. According to Article 296 of the Labor Code, it provides that
Probationary employment shall not exceed 6 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 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. In the case at bar, considering that Giskard’s appointment clearly states
that he would undergo a 6-month probation, applying Article 296 of the Labor Code
would show that he is already in his probationary period at the time he started working
in Nissen. Furthermore, it is a well settled rule in Labor Standards that so long as as
a company’s management prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the
advancement of the employer’s interest and not for the purpose of defeating or
circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid
agreements, the Court will uphold them and in this case, considering Giskard’s
conduct and violations during his employment, it is a justifiable reason for Nissen to
terminate him.

As the Labor Arbiter, how would you decide the case?

As the Labor Arbiter in this case, I would rule in favor of Europcar. According to Article
296 of the Labor Code, a probationary employee can be legally terminated either: (1)
for a just cause; or (2) when the employee fails to qualify as a regular employee in
accordance with the reasonable standards made known to him by the employer at the
start of the employment. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Abbott
Laboratories vs. Alcaraz(G.R. No. 192571) ruled that An employer is deemed to have
made known the standards that would qualify a probationary employee to be a regular
employee when it has exerted reasonable efforts to apprise the employee of what he
is expected to do or accomplish during the trial period of probation. The exception to
the foregoing is when the job is self-descriptive in nature, for instance, in the case of
maids, cooks, drivers, or messengers. In the case at bar, considering that Daneel was
informed by Europcar of his employment status and the conditions to be followed
through the issuance of the Employee Manual and the Code of Conduct, it therefore
justifies his dismissal and even if he is not furnished of the same, his contention is still
untenable for he falls under the exception of jobs that are self-descriptive in nature.

1
 3

How would you argue with the Labor Arbiter that Gladia had become a regular
employee of the Jollibee franchise holder and that her termination was illegal?

As Gladia’s counsel, I would argue that the termination of her employment was illegal.
The Supreme Court in the case of Alcira v. NLRC(G.R. No. 149859) ruled that the
computation of the 6-month probationary period is reckoned from the date of
appointment up to the same calendar date of the 6 th month following. Furthermore, in
the case of Dusit Nikko Hotel v. Gatbonton(G.R. No. 161654), the Supreme Court
ruled that in the absence of any evaluation or valid extension, we cannot conclude that
the employee failed to meet the standards of performance set by the employer. In the
case at bar, considering that she started working at Jollibee 3 years ago, that should
be the reckoning period of her probationary employment and that failure to appraise
her or evaluate her employment three months after such date, she had already
become a regular employee. Thus, she should be afforded with security of tenure as
provided in our Labor Code.

4&5

On what grounds can the rural bank justify the termination of Vasilia?

The Supreme Court in the case of Philippine Daily Inquirer v. Magtibay(G.R. No.
164532) ruled that according Article 296 of the Labor Code, a probationary employee
can be legally terminated either: (1) for a just cause; or (2) when the employee fails to
qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards made
known to him by the employer at the start of the employment. Due process of law for
the second ground consists of making the reasonable standards expected of the
employee during his probationary period known to him at the time of his probationary
employment. In the case at bar, considering that Vasilia was furnished a copy of her
job description and for as long as the termination was made in accordance with the
reasons provided by law and the standards imposed by the Rural Bank before the
expiration of the six-month probationary period, it may within its rights, sever its
employer-employee relationship with Vasilia. It must also be noted that in our
jurisdiction, the law imposes on banks a high degree of obligation on the confidence
of the people in the honesty and efficiency of banks which clearly justifies Vasilia’s
dismissal in order to protect their business which is affected with public interest.

If the rural bank decides to terminate Vasilia's services, how would Vasilia's
lawyer possibly present her case to convincingly argue that her termination is
illegal?

Vasilia’s lawyer in presenting her case could argue based on the case of Dusit Nikko
Hotel v. Gatbonton(G.R. No. 161654) upon which, the Supreme Court ruled that the
power of the employer to terminate an employee on probation is not without limitations.
First, this power must be exercised in accordance with the specific requirements of the
contract. Second, the dissatisfaction on the part of the employer must be real and in

2
good faith, not feigned so as to circumvent the contract or the law; and third, there
must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal. In the case at bar, considering
that the termination of the probationary employment of Vasilia is anchored solely on
the fact that there are pending cases involving her, this is a clear showing of unlawful
discrimination that violates the 3rd limitation on the power of the employer to terminate
a probationary employee thus making her dismissal illegal that circumvents our Labor
and Constitutional laws.

Student Number: 2015-010499