expiration of the six-month probationary period, the employer was well within his rights to sever
DE LA CRUZ JR VS NLRC
GR No: 145417
FACTS:
On May 27, 1996, petitioner de la Cruz Jr. was hired by Shemberg Marketing Corporation as
senior sales manager. On September 14, 1996, the management decided to terminate his
services. The only reason De la Cruz was told by HR manager Llanto was that it had something
to do with the drop in the company’s sales and further attempts to negotiate were not entertained.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary, back wages, 13th month
pay and damages against Shemberg, Dacay, Jr. and Llanto. Shemberg answered by explaining
that De la Cruz was terminated for his failure to meet the required company standards and for
loss of trust and confidence.
On August 25, 1997, the labor arbiter ruled that de la Cruz was illegally dismissed and granted
his claim for separation pay, back wages and unpaid wages totaling P438,750. Other claims and
the cases against respondents Dacay, Jr. and Llanto are dismissed for lack of merit. The NLRC
dismissed an appeal dated May 13, 1998. On July 9, 1999, the NLRC partially granted the motion
for reconsideration and modified its previous resolution ordering respondent to pay de la Cruz
P23,900. De la Cruz filed a motion for reconsideration of the above resolution but the same was
denied by the NLRC on November 19, 1999. De la Cruz elevated the case to the Court of
Appeals on a petition for certiorari but it was dismissed for lack of merit. A subsequent motion
for reconsideration was also denied on September 8, 2000.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed and thus should be awarded his separation
pay, back wages and unpaid wages?
HELD:
NO. Article 281 of the Labor Code expresses that Probationary employment shall not exceed six
(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 at the time of his engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a
probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. In the case, petitioner was only
employed for 4 months, thus still being considered as under probationary employment. As a
probationary employee, he enjoyed only temporary employment status. This meant that he was
terminable anytime, permanent employment not having been attained in the meantime. The
employer could well decide he no longer needed the probationary employee’s services or his
performance fell short of expectations, etc. As long as the termination was made before the
the employer-employee relationship. Petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
PHILIPPINE GRAND MOTOR PARTS CORP. VS MINISTER OF LABOR
GR No: L-58958
FACTS:
Respondent Belicena was the Branch Manager of petitioner Philippine Grand Motor Parts
Corporation’s Iloilo Branch. Previously he was the Finance Officer of Warner, Barnes, & Co.
During the period of his previous work he was induced to apply for the position of Branch
Manager since they were scouting for one who is a CPA. He started working for the petitioner
company on April 1 and it was only on Apr. 28 he resigned from his position in his previous
workplace.
After 4 months he was terminated and several allegations were made against the petitioner such
as failure to submit promptly the monthly Income and Loss Statement, Comparative Projections
& Actual Sales Report; the Comparative Performance Report dated 7/8/1980 on the operation
of the Iloilo Branch for the month of June and May, 1980, the Cash Sales of the Iloilo Branch
went down to P91,318.41 for June, 1980, as compared with the sales for the month of May, 1980
in the sum of P174,697.77; Belicena in violation of company policy and without clearance from
the head office in Cebu, extended personal accounts in favor of 15 persons which as of
November, 1980 produced delinquent accounts amounting to P18,435.80; and Belicena claimed
lack of knowledge of the vehicular accident caused by a subordinate and failed to provide prompt
administrative disciplinary action against the erring employee.
They claimed that Balicena is only a probationary employee but the Regional Director and
Minister of Labor ruled in favor of Balicena.
ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondent is a probationary employee?
HELD:
YES. Art. 282 of the Labor Code states that:
Probationary Employment. — Probationary employment shall not exceed six (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 at the time of his engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a
probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.
There was no written proof of Belicena’s employment as regular Branch Manager. He assumed
his work as of April 1 but resigned from his previous company on April 28. Therefore, if he was
indeed appointed as regular and permanent then he would have resigned immediately from his she had not yet complied, during her probation, with the prerequisites necessary for the
previous company. But since he was not yet sure of his status in the petitioner corporation, he acquisition of permanent status. There was only an expiration of contract. Petition was
resigned on a later date. Also, Philippine Grand Motors Corporation and Warner, Barnes & Co dismissed.
were engaged in different nature of business so it was needed for respondent to undergo a
probationary period to test his skills and qualifications.
Petition was granted.

ESCORPIZO VS UNIVERSITY OF BAGUIO

GR No. 121962

FACTS:

On June 13, 1989, petitioner Escorpizo was hired by University of Baguio as a high school
teacher. It was on March 18, 1991 when the university informed Escorpizo that her employment
was being terminated at the end of the school semester for failure to pass the professional board
examination for teachers (PBET). As her appeal to be given a second chance was considered,
she was allowed to teach the next school year. Her continued employment was conditioned on
her passing the PBET. Escorpizo failed again on the subsequent PBET and thus was not
included in the list of those who will teach on the next school year.
On June 8, 1992, Escorpizo passed the PBET. But on June 15, 1992, the university no longer
renewed her contract of employment on the ground that she failed to qualify as a regular teacher.
She filed on July 16, 1992 a complaint for illegal dismissal, payment of back wages and
reinstatement against the university. On June 22, 1993, the labor arbiter ruled that respondent
university had a permissible reason in not renewing the employment contract but the labor official
ordered the reinstatement of Escorpizo. An instant petition imputing grave abuse of discretion
on the part of public respondent in affirming the decision of the labor arbiter is now done by the
petitioner.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Escorpizo is still entitled to security of tenure?

HELD:

NO. Article 281 of the Labor Code expresses that 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 at the time of his engagement. Escorpizo was entitled to security of tenure
during the period of her probation but such protection ended the moment her employment
contract expired at the close of school year 1991-1992 and she was not extended a new
appointment. No vested right to a permanent appointment had as yet accrued in her favor since