52.

Holiday Inn Manila vs NLRC The Hotel’s system of double probation is a transparent scheme to
circumvent the plain mandate of the law and make it easier for it to dismiss
its employees even after they shall have already passed probation. The
FACTS: Elena Honasan applied for employment with Holiday Inn and was petitioners had ample time to summarily terminate Honasan’s services during
accepted for “on-the-job-training” as a telephone operator for a period of the period of probation if they were deemed unsatisfactory. Not having done
three weeks. After completing the training she was employed on a “probation so, they may dismiss her now only upon proof of any of the legal grounds for
basis” for a period of six months. the separation of regular employees, to be established according to the
prescribed procedure.
In her contract it was stipulated that the hotel could terminate her
probationary employment at any time prior the expiration of the 6-month *Probationary employee cannot be removed except for cause during the
period. 4 days before the expiration, she was notified by the hotel of her period of probation (Manila Hotel Corp vs NLRC)
dismissal on the ground that her performance had not come up to the
standards of the Hotel.
She filed a complaint against the hotel for illegal dismissal, claiming that she
was already a regular employee. This was dismissed by the labor arbiter,
saying that it was justified under Article 281 of the Labor Code. On appeal,
NLRC held that Honasan had become a regular employee and could not be
dismissed as a probationer. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: WON Honasan is a regular employee or an employee under
probation.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that Honasan was a regular employee. She
was put on probation twice (3 weeks “ojt” and 6 months “probationary
basis”) and the period of such clearly exceeded the period of six months
prescribed by Article 281 of the labor code.
The consequence is that she can no longer be separated on the ground
invoked by the petitioners. As a regular employee, she had acquired the
protection of Article 279 of the Labor Code.
The grounds for removal of a regular employee are enumerated in Arts. 282,
283, and 284 of the Labor Code. The procedure for such removal is
prescribed in Rule XIV, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code. These rules were not observed in the case at bar as Honasan was
simply told that her services were being terminated because they were found
unsatisfactory. No administrative investigation of any kind was undertaken to
justify this ground. She was not even accorded prior notice, let alone a
chance to be heard.
53. Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc. vs NLRC justified, hence, illegal. Private respondent is entitled to the unexpired
portion of her contract of employment for a period of one year.
FACTS: Priscila Endozo applied to petitioner Sameer Overseas
Employment Agency, a local recruitment agency, for overseas employment
in Taiwan as a domestic helper. She was deployed to Taiwan and required
her to pay P 30,000, but petitioner did not issue any receipt.
She was employed as a housemaid and after 11 days of stay, her employer
terminated her services, and sent her home for alleged incompetence.
She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, payment of salary corresponding
to the unexpired portion of her contract, illegal exaction, violation of the
Labor Code, falsification of contract of employment, attorney’s fees and
costs with the POEA against the petitioner. The Congress then enacted RA
8042, vesting the jurisdiction for claims of overseas workers to NLRC.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding that Endozo was illegally
dismissed, petitioner appealed to the NLRC and the NLRC affirmed in toto
the decision of Labor Arbiter. A motion for reconsideration was filed and
was subsequently denied, hence this petition.
ISSUE: WON employer in Taiwan could lawfully terminate Endozo’s
employment as DH for incompetence during the probationary period of her
employment.
HELD: No, It is elementary rule in the law on labor relations that even a
probationary employee is entitled to security of tenure.
Under Art. 281 of the Labor Code, a probationary employee may be
terminated on two grounds: (1) for just cause or (2) 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. Under the
contract of employment, the employer may terminate the services of private
respondent during the probationary period for “being found losing ability to
work.” However, this power is subject to limitations, First, it must be
exercised in accordance with the specific requirements of the contract,
Secondly, the dissatisfaction of the employer must be real and in good faith,
not feigned so as to circumvent the contract of the law, and Thirdly, there
must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal.
In this case, petitioner was not able to present convincing proof establishing
respondent Endozo’s alleged incompetence. Thus, the termination was not
 ISSUE: WON de la Cruz is a probationary employee of Shemberg
HELD: Yes, De la Cruz is a probationary employee.
54. De la Cruz vs NLRC The records show that the employee was well informed of the standards to be
met before he could qualify as a regular employee. Attached to his
FACTS: Florencio de la Cruz was hired by the private respondent, Shemberg
appointment paper was the job description of a sales manager.
Marketing Corp. as Senior Sales Manager. Its duties included, among others,
the supervision and control of the sales force of the company, also, sales A probationary employee is one who, for a given period of time, is under
manager are vested with some discretion to decide on matters within the observation and evaluation to determine whether or not he is qualified for
scope of his functions. permanent employment. During the probationary period, the employer is
given the opportunity to observe the skill, competence and attitude of the
Barely 4 months after, he was informed that the company will terminate his
employee while the latter seeks to prove to the employer that he has the
services. When he asked about the ground for the said termination, the HR
qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for employment. The length
informed him that it was due to the drop in company’s sales. He requested a
of time is immaterial in determining the correlative rights of both the
meeting with the Vice president of the company and to be furnished of the
employer and the employee in dealing with each other during said period.
30-day written notice, but it was all denied by the management.
He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary, backwages,
13th month pay and damages against Shemberg, the vice president and HR There is no dispute that petitioner, as a probationary employee, enjoyed only
Dept. manager. The company on their answer stated that the petitioner was temporary employment status. Thus, he is terminable anytime. The
terminated for his failure to meet the required company standards and for loss termination was made before the expiration of the 6-month probationary
of trust and confidence. period; hence the employer was within his rights to sever the employer-
employee relationship. The respondent Shemberg had a good reason to
The Labor Arbiter favored de la Cruz. On Appeal, NLRC dismissed the
terminate de la cruz’s employment.
appeal, thereafter a motion for reconsideration was filed and the company
presented additional evidence: affidavit by the Shemberg’s vice president for
operation; petitioner’s letter of appointment; petitioner’s job description;
memorandum of warning for the petitioner of the huge drop in company
sales; and an undated memorandum requiring the petitioner to explain why
he was claiming reimbursement for his wife’s and child’s plane tickets.
Petitioner opposed the motion and the additional evidence presented. The
NLRC partially granted the motion for reconsideration and modified the
previous resolution. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same
was denied by the NLRC. The case was elevated to the CA, but was
dismissed for lack of merit, his subsequent motion was denied. Hence, this
petition.
Petitioner vigorously contends that he was not a probationary employee since
Shemberg failed to disclose to him the reasonable standards for qualifying as
a regular employee.