G.R. No. 164532 July 24, 2007PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, INC.,Petitioner,vs.LEON M. MAGTIBAY, JR. and PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER EMPLOYEES UNION (PDIEU),Respondents.GARCIA,J.:

Facts: Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. (PDI) hired Leon Magtibay (Magtibay) as a contractual worker for 5 months. After the expiration of the said contract, PDI hired him again with a probationary period of 6 months. A week before the end of the second contract, PDI handed him his termination letter due to failure in meeting company standards.Magtibay then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter stating that he has now become a regular employee by working for more than 6 months. The PDI union supported him stating unfair labor practice. Saying that he did not know he was supposed to follow company standards and that he was not given due process in his termination.PDI explained that his 5-month contract should not be included with his 6-month contract allowing him to be considered a regular employee, and that he was in fact given an orientation on what the company standards were. The Labor Arbiter agreed with PDI and dismissed his complaint and acquitted PDI of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.When the case was brought to the NLRC, it reversed the Arbiters decision and charged PDI with illegal dismissal due to the fact that Magtibay was now considered a regular employee. Also, Magtibay was not told that he must abide by company standards.The Court of Appeals agreed with the NLRC. PDI filed a motion for reconsideration to no avail.Issue: Whether a probationary employees failure to follow company standards is ground for illegal dismissal.Ruling: The NLRC and CAs decisions were reversed and set aside thereby reinstating the Labor Arbiters decision to acquit PDI of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.The SC ruled that company standards are meant to be followed even if an employee is not made aware of them. Allemployees, be they regular or probationary, are expected to comply with company-imposed rules and regulations, else why establish them in the first place. Probationary employees unwilling to abide by such rules have no right to expect, much less demand, permanent employment. Also, PDI did not violate procedural process due to the fact the Magtibay was on a probationary period and was not up to company standards. Reason is that a probationary has the duty to prove his worth to the employer to become a permanent employee. The due process here is in the constant observance and evaluation of Magtibays performance, in which he failed by violating certain company rules and regulations.G.R. No.185829, April 25, 2012

ARMANDO ALILING,Petitioner,-versus-JOSE B. FELICIANO, MANUELF.SAN MATEOIII, JOSEPH R.LARIOSA, and WIDE WIDE

VELASCO, JR.,J.:Facts:

G.R. No. 72222 January 30, 1989 INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BERNADETTE GALANG, respondents. FERNAN,C.J.:Facts: 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, 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. On August 1983, private respondent filed a complaint 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. On October 1983, after the parties submitted their respective position papers and other pleadings, the Labor Arbiter 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. 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. Issue: Whether 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.Ruling: The Court held, 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. 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: 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 employer who has been engaged in a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employer in accordance with reasonable standard 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. 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. The word "probationary", as used to describe the period of employment, implies the purpose of the term or period, but not its length. Being in the nature of a "trial period" 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.G.R. No. L-63316 July 31, 1984ILUMINADA VER BUISER, MA. CECILIA RILLOACUA and MA. MERCEDES P. INTENGAN,petitioners,vs.HON. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., in his capacity as Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Labor & Employment, and GENERAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY, CO.,respondents.GUERRERO,J.:Facts: Petitioner and private respondent entered into an employment contract which provides that he employee was employed on probationary status for a period of 18 months and that during the probationary period, the employee may be terminated by the company without giving notice of termination or payment of termination pay. Private respondent prescribed quotas to be accomplished or met by the employees. Failing to meet their respective quotas, petitioners were dismissed from service. A complaint for illegal dismissal was then filed by petitioners with NLRC. It was ruled that thepetitioners have not attained permanent status since private respondentwas justified in requiring a longer period of probation and that the termination of petitioners services was valid since the latter failed to meet their sales quotas.Issue: Whether probationary period is limited only to six months and an 18-month period is not a probation period but rather a regular one.Ruling: Generally, the probationary period of employmentis limited to 6 mos. The exception to this general rule is when the parties to an employmentcontract may agree otherwise, such as when the same is established by co. policy or when the same is required by the nature of work to be performed by the employee. In the latter case, there is recognition of the exercise of managerial prerogatives in requiring a longer period of probationary employment, such as in the present case where the probationary period was set for 18 months, especially where the employee must learn a particular kind of work such as selling, or when the job requires certain qualifications, skills, experience or training.

Policy Instruction No. 11 of the Minister of Labor and employmenthas clarified any & all doubts on the period of probationary. It states as follows:

Probationary employmenthas been the subject of misunderstanding in some quarter. Some people believe 6 mos. is the probationary period in all cases. On the other hand employs who have already served the probationary period are sometimes required to serve again on probation.

Under the Labor Code 6 months. is the general probationary period ' but the probationary period is actually the period needed to determine fitness for the job. This period, for lack of a better measurement is deemed to be the period needed to learn the job.

The purpose of this policy is to protect the worker at the same time enable the employerto make a meaningful employee selection. This purpose should be kept in mind in enforcing this provision of the Code. This issuance shall take effect immediately.

In the case at bar, it is shown that private respondentcompany needs at least 18 months to determine the character & selling capabilities of the petitioners as sales representatives. The co. is engaged in advertisement & publication in the Yellow Pages of the PLDT Telephone Directories. Publication of solicited ads are only made a year. After the sale has been made & only then win the co. be able to evaluate the efficiency, conduct, & selling ability of its sales representatives, the evaluation being based on the published ads. Moreover, an eighteen mo. probationary period is recognized by theLUin the privateRTco., w/c is Art. V of the CBA, ... thus:

"Probationary Period" NewEEs hired for regular or permanent shall undergo a probationary or trial period of six (6) mos., except in the cases of telephone or sales representatives where the probationary period shall be 18 mos.

And as indicated earlier, the very contracts ofETsigned & acquiesced to by thePRs specifically indicate that "the co. hereby employs theEEas telephone sales representative on a probationary status for a period of 18 mos., i.e. from May 1980 to Oct. 1981, inclusive.This stipulation is not contrary to law, morals & public policy.

We, therefore, hold & rule that the probationary ET of PRs set to 18 mos. is legal & valid & that the RD & the Deputy Minister of Labor & ET committed no abuse of discretion in ruling accordingly.G.R. No. 74246 January 26, 1989 MARIWASA MANUFACTURING, INC., and ANGEL T. DAZO, petitioners, vs. HON. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., in his capacity as Deputy Minister of Ministry of Labor and Employment judgment, and JOAQUIN A. DEQUILA, respondents. NARVASA, J.:Facts: Private respondent Dequilla was hired on probation by petitioner Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. as a general utility worker on January 1979. Upon the expiration of the probationary period of six months, Dequila was informed by his employer that his work had proved unsatisfactory and had failed to meet the required standards. To give him a chance to improve his performance and qualify for regular employment, instead of dispensing with his service then and there, with his written consent Mariwasa extended his probation period for another three months from July to October 1979. His performance, however, did not improve and on that account Mariwasa terminated his employment at the end of the extended period. Dequila thereupon filed with the Ministry of Labor against Mariwasa a complaint for illegal dismissal and violation of Presidential Decrees Nos. 928 and 1389 but was dismissed by Ministry of Labor NCR and ruled that the termination of Dequila's employment was in the circumstances justified and rejected his money claims for insufficiency of evidence. On appeal to the Office of the Minister, however, said disposition was reversed and held that Dequila was already a regular employee at the time of his dismissal, therefore, could not have been lawfully dismissed for failure to meet company standards as a probationary worker. Issue: Whether employer and employee may, by agreement, extend the probationary period of employment beyond the six months prescribed in Art. 282 of the Labor Code.Ruling: YES, agreements stipulating longer probationary periods may constitute lawful exceptions to the statutory prescription limiting such periods to six months.The SC in its decision in Buiser vs. Leogardo, Jr. (1984) said that Generally, the probationary period of employment is limited to six (6) months. The exception to this general rule is when the parties to an employment contract may agree otherwise, such as when the same is established by company policy or when the same is required by the nature of work to be performed by the employee. In the latter case, there is recognition of the exercise of managerial prerogatives in requiring a longer period of probationary employment, such as in the present case where the probationary period was set for eighteen (18) months, i.e. from May, 1980 to October, 1981 inclusive, especially where the employee must learn a particular kind of work such as selling, or when the job requires certain qualifications, skills experience or training.In this case, the extension given to Dequila could not have been pre-arranged to avoid the legal consequences of a probationary period satisfactorily completed. In fact, it wasex gratia, an act of liberality on the part of his employer affording him a second chance to make good after having initially failed to prove his worth as an employee. Such an act cannot now unjustly be turned against said employer's account to compel it to keep on its payroll one who could not perform according to its work standards. By voluntarily agreeing to an extension of the probationary period, Dequila in effect waived any benefit attaching to the completion of said period if he still failed to make the grade during the period of extension. By reasonably extending the period of probation, the questioned agreement actually improved the probationary employee's prospects of demonstrating his fitness for regular employment.G.R. No. 82918 March 11, 1991 LA SALETTE OF SANTIAGO, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and CLARITA JAVIER, respondents. NARVASA, J.:Facts: Private respondent has been assigned to different administrative and teaching positions of the petitioners school system, a private school system, where private respondent was initially employed for three years as high school principal. In 1984 to 1986 private respondent was again assigned as the high school principal of the petitioner. After her term as high school principal she received a letter from the petitioner instructing her to report to La Sallete College and stating the person as her replacement as high school principal. Private respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner complaining of her sudden removal as high school principal but did not received any reply so she filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter decided in her favor and the CA affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Issue: Whether private respondent had acquired permanency, or tenure in the position of high school principal of the educational system of La Salette of Santiago Inc.Ruling: The Court held, according to Policy Instructions No. 11 issued by the Department of Labor and Employment, the probationary employment of professors, instructors and teachers shall be subject to standards established by the Department of Education and Culture. Said standards are embodied in paragraph 75 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. Unlike teachers (assistant instructors, assistant, professors, associate professors, full professors) who aspire for and expect to acquired permanency, or security of tenure, in their employment, as faculty members, teachers who are appointed as department heads or administrative officials (e.g., college or department secretaries principals, directors, assistant deans, deans) do not normally, and should not expect to, acquire a second status of permanency, or an additional or second security of tenure as such officer. The acquisition of such an additional tenure, to repeat, is not consistent with normal practice, constitutes the exception rather than the rule, and may take place only where categorically and explicitly provided by law or agreement of the parties. Therefore, private respondent did not acquire permanency or tenure in the position of high school principal of the educational system of La Sallete of Santiago Inc.