Labor Standards Case Digests Compiled - 8.01

8.
01
INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION vs NLRC
(Denton of Probaton)
FACTS:
Pettoner ICMC s a non-prot organzaton dedcated to refugee servce at
the Phppne Refugee Processng Center n Morong, Bataan.
It engaged the servces of prvate respondent Bernadette Gaang on
1/24/1983 as a probatonary cutura orentaton teacher.
After 3 months, she was nformed oray and n wrtng that her servces were
beng termnated because she faed n the performance evauaton of her
supervsors durng the teacher evauaton program.
On 8/22/1983, Gaang ed a compant for ega dsmssa, unfar abor
practce and unpad wages aganst pettoner wth the then Mnstry of Labor
and Empoyment, prayng for renstatement wth backwages, exempary and
mora damages.
On 10/8/1983, Labor Arbter dsmssed the compant for ega dsmssa as
we as the compant for mora and exempary damages but orderng the
ICMC to pay Gaang the sum of P6,000.00 as payment for the ast 3 months
of the agreed empoyment perod pursuant to her verba contract of
empoyment.
Both partes appeaed the decson to the NLRC. On 8/22/1985, the NLRC, by a
ma|orty vote of Commssoners Guermo C. Medna and Gabre M.
Gatchaan, sustaned the decson of the Labor Arbter and dsmssed both
appeas for ack of mert. Dssatsed, pettoner ed the nstant petton.
ISSUE: Whether or not an empoyee who was termnated durng the probatonary
perod of her empoyment s entted to her saary for the unexpred porton of
her sx-month probatonary empoyment.
HELD: NO.
Gaang was termnated durng her probatonary perod of empoyment for
failure to ualif! a" a re#ular $e$%er of &etitio'er(" tea)*i'# "ta+
i' a))or,a')e -it* it" rea"o'a%le "ta',ar,".
Gaang was found by pettoner to be decent n cassroom management,
teacher-student reatonshp and teachng technques. Faure to quafy as a
reguar empoyee n accordance wth the reasonabe standards of the
empoyer s a |ust cause for termnatng a probatonary empoyee speccay
recognzed under Artce 282 (now Artce 281) of the Labor Code.
The abor arbters decson s erroneous.
Page 1 of ./
The award of saary for the unexpred porton of the probatonary
empoyment on the ground that a probatonary empoyment for 6 months s
an empoyment for a "dente perod" whch requres the empoyer to
exhaust the entre probatonary perod to gve the empoyee the opportunty
to meet the requred standards.
A &ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!ee s one who s on tra by an empoyer durng
whch the empoyer determnes whether or not he s quaed for permanent
empoyment.
A &ro%atio'ar! a&&oi't$e't s made to ahord the empoyer an
opportunty to observe the tness of a probatoner whe at work, and to
ascertan whether he w become a proper and emcent empoyee.
The word 0&ro%atio'ar!12 as used to descrbe the perod of empoyment,
mpes the purpose of the term or perod, but not ts ength.
Beng n the nature of a "tra perod" t*e e""e')e of a &ro%atio'ar!
&erio, of e$&lo!$e't fu',a$e'tall! lie" i' t*e &ur&o"e or o%3e)ti4e
"ou#*t to %e attai'e, %! %ot* t*e e$&lo!er a', t*e e$&lo!ee durng
sad perod.
The ength of tme s mmatera n determnng the correatve rghts of both
n deang wth each other durng sad perod.
It s wthn the exercse of the rght to seect hs empoyees that the empoyer
may set or x a probatonary perod wthn whch the atter may test and
observe the conduct of the former before hrng hm permanenty.
As the aw now stands, Artce 281 of the Labor Code gves ampe authorty to
the empoyer to termnate a probatonary empoyee for a 3u"t )au"e or
-*e' *e fail" to ualif! a" a re#ular e$&lo!ee n accordance wth
reasonabe standards made known by the empoyer to the empoyee at the
tme of hs engagement.
Nothng woud precude the empoyer from extendng a reguar or a
permanent appontment to an empoyee once the empoyer nds that the
empoyee s quaed for reguar empoyment even before the expraton of
the probatonary perod.
There was no showng, as borne out by the records, that there was
crcumventon of the rghts of Gaang when she was nformed of her
termnaton.
Her dsmssa does not appear to us as arbtrary, fancfu or whmsca . She
was duy noted, oray and n wrtng, that her servces were termnated for
faure to meet the prescrbed standards of pettoner as reected n the
performance evauaton conducted by her supervsors durng the teacher
evauatng program.
The dssatsfacton of pettoner over the performance of prvate respondent
n ths regard s a le#iti$ate e5er)i"e of it" &rero#ati4e to "ele)t -*o$
Page 6 of ./
to *ire or refu"e e$&lo!$e't for t*e "u))e"" of it" &ro#ra$ or
u',erta7i'#.
The ower court abused ts dscreton when t ordered ICMC to Gaang her
saary for the unexpred three-month porton of her sx-month probatonary
empoyment when she was vady termnated durng her probatonary
empoyment.
To "a')tio' "u)* a)tio' -oul, 'ot o'l! %e u'3u"t1 %ut o&&re""i4e o'
t*e &art of t*e e$&lo!er.
DIS8OSITION: The petton s GRANTED. The Resouton of the NLRC s
RE9ERSED and SET ASIDE nsofar as t ordered pettoner to pay prvate
respondent her P6,000.00 saary for the unexpred porton of her sx-month
probatonary empoyment. No cost.
8*il. Fe,eratio' of Cre,it Coo&erati4e" I') 4" NLRC :1;;8<
Fa)t":
Vctora Abr was empoyed by PFCCI n dherent capactes from 1982 to
1988, when she went on eave unt she gave brth.
When she went back n 1989, after 8 months, another empoyee had been
permanenty apponted to her former poston of omce secretary. She
accepted a poston of Regona Fed Omcer. The contract reads:
"That the empoyer hres the empoyee on contractua bass to
the poston of Regona Fed Omcer of Regon 4 under
FCCI/WOCCU/Ad Pro|ect No. 8175 and to do the functon as
stpuated n the |ob descrpton assgned to hm (her): on
probatonary status ehectve February 17/90 for a perod not to
exceed sx (6) months from sad ehectvty, sub|ect to renewa of
ths contract shoud the empoyee's performance be
satsfactory."

Sad perod havng eapsed, respondent was aowed to work unt PFCCI
presented to her another empoyment contract for a perod of one year
commencng on |anuary 2, 1991 unt December 31, 1991, after whch perod,
her empoyment was termnated.
LA dsmssed her compant for ega dsmssa aganst PFCCI.
NLRC set asde LAs decson and ordered her renstated to her ast poston
hed (RFO) or to an equvaent poston, wth fu backwages from |an 1, 1992
unt she s renstated.
Page = of ./
I""ue: WON Abr was a probatonary empoyee.
Hel,: No. A%ril i" a re#ular e$&lo!ee.
It s an eementary rue n the aw on abor reatons that a probationary
employee who is engaged to work beyond the probationary period of
six months, as provided under Art. 281 of the Labor Code, as
amended, or for any length of time set forth by the employer, shall
be onsidered a regular employee.
Arti)le 681 of t*e La%or Co,e1 a" a$e',e,1 allo-" t*e e$&lo!er to
"e)ure t*e "er4i)e" of a' e$&lo!ee o' a &ro%atio'ar! %a"i" -*i)*
allo-" *i$ to ter$i'ate t*e latter for 3u"t )au"e or u&o' failure to
ualif! i' a))or,a')e -it* rea"o'a%le "ta',ar," "et fort* %! t*e
e$&lo!er at t*e ti$e of *i" e'#a#e$e't.
As dened n the case of Internatona Cathoc Mgraton v. NLRC, "a
&ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!ee i" o'e -*o i" o' trial %! a' e$&lo!er ,uri'#
-*i)* t*e e$&lo!er ,eter$i'e" -*et*er or 'ot *e i" uali>e, for
&er$a'e't e$&lo!$e't.
A &ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!$e't i" $a,e to a+or, t*e e$&lo!er a'
o&&ortu'it! to o%"er4e t*e >t'e"" of a &ro%atio'er -*ile at -or71
a', to a")ertai' -*et*er *e -ill %e)o$e a &ro&er a', e?)ie't
e$&lo!ee.2
ES8INA 9". CA
FACTS:
M.Y. San Workers Unon-PTGWO and M.Y. San Saes Force Unon-PTGWO was
nformed of the cosure or cessaton of busness operatons of respondent M.Y.
San as a resut of the ntended sae of the busness to respondent Monde M.Y.
San Corporaton (Monde) and was noted of ther termnaton.
A the empoyees of respondent M.Y. San receved ther separaton pay and
the cash equvaent of ther vacaton and sck eaves. Thereafter, they sgned
ther respectve Outcams.
Then respondent Monde commenced ts operatons. A the former empoyees
of respondent M.Y. San who were termnated upon ts cosure and who apped
and quaed for probatonary empoyment, ncudng pettoners, started
workng for respondent Monde on a contractua bass for a perod of sx
months.
Subsequenty, pettoners were termnated.
Thus, pettoners ed a Compant for ega dsmssa.
Page . of ./
Respondent Monde aeged that pettoners had no cause of acton aganst t,
statng thus:
T*e "u&er4i"or" of Mo',e )o',u)te, a' e4aluatio' of t*e
&erfor$a')e of all it" &ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!ee"1 i')lu,i'#
*erei' )o$&lai'a't". Out of t*e 11@ &ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!ee"
o'l! /. e$&lo!ee" uali>e, for re#ular e$&lo!$e't.
For t*o"e -*o ,i, 'ot ualif! for re#ular e$&lo!$e't1
i')lu,i'# &etitio'er"1 re"&o',e't Mo',e #a4e t*e re$ai',er
of t*eir &ro%atio'ar! &erio,1 to &ro4e t*eir uali>)atio' for
re#ular e$&lo!$e't t*ere-it* %ut &etitio'er" eit*er: :a<
re"i#'e, fro$ t*eir e$&lo!$e't -it* Mo',eA :%< refu"e, to
re&ort for -or7 :)< faile, to ualif! for re#ular e$&lo!$e't at
t*e e5&iratio' of t*e &erio, of t*eir &ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!$e't.
Labor Arbter rued that Monde estabshed a |ust and authorzed cause for
termnatng the servces of pettoners. NLRC amrmed the Decson of the
Labor Arbter.
ISSUE: WON M.Y. SAN MONDE ILLEGALY DISMISSED THE PETITIONERS.
HELD:
There s no dspute that pettoners were probatonary empoyees as stated n
ther ndvdua contracts of empoyment wth respondent Monde.
It must be noted that pettoners were termnated pror to the expraton of
ther probatonary contracts.
A" &ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!ee"1 t*e! e'3o!e, o'l! te$&orar!
e$&lo!$e't "tatu". I' #e'eral ter$"1 t*i" $ea't t*at t*e! -ere
ter$i'a%le a'!ti$e1 &er$a'e't e$&lo!$e't 'ot *a4i'# %ee'
attai'e, i' t*e $ea'ti$e.
The empoyer coud we decde f he no onger needed the probatonarys
servce or hs performance fe short of expectatons, as a probatonary
empoyee s one who, for a gven perod of tme, s under observaton and
evauaton to determne whether or not he s quaed for permanent
empoyment.
Duri'# t*e &ro%atio'ar! &erio,1 t*e e$&lo!er i" #i4e' t*e
o&&ortu'it! to o%"er4e t*e "7ill1 )o$&ete')e a', attitu,e of t*e
e$&lo!ee to ,eter$i'e if *e *a" t*e uali>)atio' to $eet t*e
rea"o'a%le "ta',ar," for &er$a'e't e$&lo!$e't.
Page B of ./
the empoyer and the empoyee n deang wth each other durng sad perod.
Thus, as ong as the termnaton was made before the expraton of the sx-
month probatonary perod, the empoyer was we wthn hs rghts to sever
the empoyer-empoyee reatonshp. A contrary nterpretaton woud defeat
the cear meanng of the term "probatonary."
Thus, re"&o',e't Mo',e e5er)i"e, i' #oo, fait* it" $a'a#e$e't
&rero#ati4e a" t*ere i" 'o ,i"&ute t*at &etitio'er" *a, %ee' *a%ituall!
a%"e't1 'e#le)tful of t*eir -or71 a', re',ere, u'"ati"fa)tor! "er4i)e1 to
t*e ,a$a#e a', &re3u,i)e of t*e )o$&a'!.
8HILEM8LOC SER9ICE AND RESOURCES INC 9. RODRIGUED .8@ SCRA =06
:600@<
FACTS:
Anta RODRIGUEZ apped wth respondent PHILEMPLOY Servces and
Resources, Inc. for depoyment abroad as a factory worker. When she was
asked to report for work, Ms. Brenda Castro, an omca of respondent,
demanded from her the sum of P60,000 as pacement fee.
Snce she coud not ahord such amount, they agreed that she woud ntay
pay P30T as down payment and the baance of P30,000 pus 7% nterest
every month thereafter through saary deductons. She then pad Ms. Castro
the P30T but was not ssued any recept.
Thereafter, she executed a contract of empoyment as a domestc heper of
one Chao Hung Chng of Tape, Tawan wth a monthy saary of NT$14,010,
pus free food and accommodaton for a perod of 1 year.
On 13 |an 1995, she was depoyed to Tawan. As such DH, she worked from
5am unt 10pm. Among her chores were to carwash the vehce of her
master, cook the meas, houseceanng and babysttng. On 24 |an 1995, she
had a tak wth her master where she was tod that she s beng sent home
due to certan probems.
Companant peaded that she contnue her empoyment, confronted as she
was wth the debts she had to pay. But she was sent home the foowng day.
o Whe at the arport, a certan Ms. Go forced her to sgn an Amdavt
where t stated that her eavng as a DH was vountary and that she
woud assume a the obgatons for her trave back to the Phppnes.
o She was ony pad the sum of NT$1,931 (12 days work).
Page @ of ./
Respondent aeged that t was stpuated and agreed upon n the contract,
that she woud undergo a 40-day probatonary perod before she becomes a
reguar domestc heper.
o Aso, she was charged of her pacement fees as aowed by aw and by
the POEA rues and reguatons.
o Durng the rst 10 days of her probatonary perod, she was observed
to be nattentve and ncompetent to perform her dutes and
responsbtes.
Labor Arbter rued n favor of Rodrguez.
NLRC deeted award of P155,000 for unearned wages snce there s no ega
dsmssa that took pace.
CA reversed NLRC decson and renstated Labor Arbters
ISSUE: WON Rodrguez was a probatonary empoyee durng the tme of her
dsmssa.
HELD: Ce".
Pettoner ponted out that they had agreed n ther empoyment contract that
Antas pacement was sub|ect to a 40-day probatonary perod.
Anta s deemed to have admtted the exstence of ths stpuaton n the
empoyment contract as she never dsputed pettoners asserton n a the
peadngs that she submtted to the NLRC, the Court of Appeas, and ths
Court.
Hence, e4e' if it -ere true t*at A'ita(" forei#' e$&lo!er ter$i'ate,
*er "er4i)e" after 10 ,a!" of *er e$&lo!$e't1 t*ere )oul, %e 'o
ille#al ,i"$i""al a" t*e ter$i'atio' -a" e+e)te, ,uri'# t*e a#ree,
&ro%atio'ar! &erio,.
I',ee,1 a' e$&lo!er1 i' t*e e5er)i"e of it" $a'a#e$e't &rero#ati4e1
$a! *ire a' e$&lo!ee o' a &ro%atio'ar! %a"i" i' or,er to ,eter$i'e
*i" >t'e"" to &erfor$ *i" -or7.
T*e e$&lo!ee(" "er4i)e" $a! %e ter$i'ate, for a 3u"t )au"e or for
*i" failure to ualif! a" a re#ular e$&lo!ee %a"e, o' rea"o'a%le
"ta',ar," $a,e 7'o-' to *i$ at t*e ti$e of *i" e'#a#e$e't.
Anta was empoyed as a domestc heper on a probatonary bass.
Her foregn empoyer ntervewed her through teephone cas and apprsed
her of the terms and condtons of her empoyment as house heper.
Upon her arrva at her empoyers house n Tawan, her empoyer apprsed
her agan of her dutes as house heper.
The ndngs of fact of the Labor Arbter whch the NLRC and the Court
Appeas adopted revea that Antas foregn empoyer was dssatsed wth
her performance.
Page / of ./
The aw n protectng the rghts of the aborer authorzes nether oppresson
nor sef-destructon of the empoyer.
Whe the Consttuton s commtted to the pocy of soca |ustce and the
protecton of the workng cass, t shoud not be supposed that every abor
dspute woud automatcay be decded n favor of abor.
GRAND MOTOR 8ARTS COR8ORATION vs MINISTER OF LAEOR
FACTS:
Respondent Bacena was the Branch Manager of the pettoner companys
Ioo Branch. Pror to hs empoyment n Grand Motor, he was the Fnance
Omcer of Warner, Barnes, & Co., when aegedy Mr. Afredo Csneros (actng
branch manager) nduced hm to appy for the poston of Branch Manager, as
ther company (pettoner) was ookng for a CPA.
He apped for the |ob and was accepted. He started workng for the
pettoner company on Apr 1 but resgned from hs poston n Warner,
Barnes, & Co. ony on Apr 28.
However, he was termnated ony after workng for the company for ony 4
months because of nfractons aeged by the pettoner, such as:
o He faed to submt prompty the monthy Income and Loss Statement,
Comparatve Pro|ectons & Actua Saes Report;
o the Comparatve Performance Report dated 7/8/1980 on the operaton
of the Ioo Branch for the month of |une and May, 1980, the Cash
Saes of the Ioo Branch went down to P91,318.41 for |une, 1980, as
compared wth the saes for the month of May, 1980 n the sum of
P174,697.77;
o Becena n voaton of company pocy and wthout cearance from the
head omce n Cebu, extended persona accounts n favor of 15 persons
whch as of November, 1980 produced denquent accounts amountng
to P18,435.80; and
o Becena camed ack of knowedge of the vehcuar accdent caused
by a subordnate and faed to provde prompt admnstratve
dscpnary acton aganst the errng empoyee.
They camed that Bacena s ony a probatonary empoyee, whch woud be
observed by the company for 4-6 months and that Bacena knew that there
s a possbty that he woud not get the |ob.
Bacena on the other hand aeged that he s a reguar empoyee, athough
he was not abe to present any contract estabshng hs status as a reguar
empoyee;
Page 8 of ./
o that the mshap nvovng the company's vehce whch was used
wthout hs permsson and knowedge coud not be bamed upon hm;
o that the aeged reports whch he faed to send were not remnded to
hm, verbay or n wrtng; that hs saes for the perod Apr to August,
1980 s hgher compared to that for the same perod n 1979; and
o that the aeged accounts remanng unpad as of 11/6/1980 woud
have been coected n fu f he were st the Manager, among other
thngs.
Regona Drector and Mnster of Labor rued n favor of Bacena, orderng hs
renstatement, payment of hs backwages, and other prveges.
ISSUE: Whether or not prvate respondent's empoyment as Branch Manager was
temporary or probatonary, and not reguar and permanent.
HELD: 8ROEATIONARC.
At the outset, Bacena was a probatonary empoyee:
There was no wrtten proof of Bacenas appontment or empoyment as
reguar and permanent Branch Manager. There was the fact that he assumed
hs work as of Apr 1 but resgned from hs prevous company ony on Apr
28, $ea'i'# t*at if *e -a" reall! a&&oi'te, a" re#ular a',
&er$a'e't t*e' *e -oul, *a4e re"i#'e, i$$e,iatel! fro$ *i" ol,
)o$&a'!. But snce he was not yet sure of hs status n the pettoner
corporaton, he resgned ate.
The Court cannot sustan Bacenas cam, the absence of a wrtten contract
due to the fact that contracts were gven ony to those who w pass the
probatonary perod and the rank-and-e empoyee, not to those managera
ones, are )o'trar! to u"ual %u"i'e"" &ra)ti)e e"&e)iall! i' $ultiF
$illio' e'ter&ri"e" a" t*e &etitio'er )or&oratio'. Consderng the
magntude of ts saes and operaton, pettoner corporaton must have taken
the necessary precautons to test the quacatons, abty and performance
of ts Branch Manager, but he dd not. The concuson s nevtabe that hs
hrng was temporary.
Bacena had never been hred as manager, and the pettoner company and
Bacenas former company are engaged n dherent knds of busness so it
-a" 'e)e""ar! for Eali)e'a to u',er#o a &erio, of &ro%atio' to te"t
*i" uali>)atio'"1 "7ill" a', e5&erie')e "i')e $a'a#i'# i" a 'e-
e5&erie')e for *i$.
T*e e$&lo!er *a" t*e ri#*t or i" at li%ert! to )*oo"e a" to -*o -ill %e
*ire, a', -*o -ill %e ,e)li'e,. It s wthn the exercse of ths rght to seect hs
empoyees that the e$&lo!er $a! "et or >5 &ro%atio'ar! &erio, wthn whch
Page ; of ./
the atter may test and observed the conduct of the former before hrng hm
permanenty. "The rght of the aborer to se hs abor to such persons as he may
choose s, n ts essence, the same as the rght of an empoyer to purchased abor
from any person whom t chooses. The empoyer and the empoyee have thus an
equaty of rghts guaranteed by the Consttuton.
DIS8OSITION: Order of the Deputy Mnster of Labor s REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
No costs. PETITION GRANTED.
I'ter'atio'al Cat*oli) Mi#ratio' Co$$i""io' 4" NLRC :1;8;<
Fa)t":
Pettoner Internatona Cathoc Mgraton Commsson (ICMC), a non-prot
organzaton dedcated to refugee servce at the Phppne Refugee
Processng Center n Morong, Bataan engaged the servces of prvate
respondent Bernadette Gaang as a probatonary cutura orentaton teacher
wth a monthy saary of P2,000.00.
Three (3) months thereafter, prvate respondent was nformed, oray and n
wrtng, that her servces were beng termnated for her faure to meet the
prescrbed standards of pettoner as reected n the performance evauaton
of her supervsors.
Prvate respondent ed a compant for ega dsmssa, unfar abor practce
and unpad wages aganst pettoner wth the then Mnstry of Labor and
Empoyment, prayng for renstatement wth backwages, exempary and
mora damages.
Labor Arbter rendered hs decson dsmssng the compant for ega
dsmssa as we as the compant for mora and exempary damages but
orderng the pettoner to pay prvate respondent the sum of P6,000.00 as
payment for the ast three (3) months of the agreed empoyment perod
pursuant to her verba contract of empoyment.
Both partes appeaed the decson to the Natona Labor Reatons
Commsson.
The NLRC, by a ma|orty vote, sustaned the decson of the Labor Arbter and
thus dsmssed both appeas for ack of mert.
Dssatsed, pettoner ed the nstant petton.
I""ue: Whether or not an empoyee who was termnated durng the probatonary
perod of her empoyment s entted to saary for the unexpred porton of her
6-month probatonary empoyment.
Hel,:
Page 10 of ./
There s |ustabe bass for the reversa of pubc respondents award of
saary for the unexpred three-month porton of prvate respondents sx-
month probatonary empoyment n the ght of ts express ndng that there
was no ega dsmssa.
There s no dspute that prvate respondent was termnated durng her
probatonary perod of empoyment for faure to quafy as a reguar member
of pettoners teachng stah n accordance wth ts reasonabe standards.
Records show that prvate respondent was found by pettoner to be decent
n cassroom management, teacher-student reatonshp and teachng
technques.
Faure to quafy as a reguar empoyee n accordance wth the reasonabe
standards of the empoyer s a |ust cause for termnatng a probatonary
empoyee speccay recognzed under Artce 282 (now Artce 281) of the
Labor Code.
A &ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!ee, as understood under Artce 282 (now Artce
281) of the Labor Code, i" o'e -*o i" o' trial %! a' e$&lo!er ,uri'#
-*i)* t*e e$&lo!er ,eter$i'e" -*et*er or 'ot *e i" uali>e, for
&er$a'e't e$&lo!$e't.
A &ro%atio'ar! a&&oi't$e't i" $a,e to a+or, t*e e$&lo!er a'
o&&ortu'it! to o%"er4e t*e >t'e"" of a &ro%atio'er -*ile at -or71
a', to a")ertai' -*et*er *e -ill %e)o$e a &ro&er a', e?)ie't
e$&lo!ee.
T*e -or, 0&ro%atio'ar!21 a" u"e, to ,e")ri%e t*e &erio, of
e$&lo!$e't1 i$&lie" t*e &ur&o"e of t*e ter$ or &erio,1 %ut 'ot it"
le'#t*.
Beng n the nature of a 0trial &erio,2 t*e e""e')e of a &ro%atio'ar!
&erio, of e$&lo!$e't fu',a$e'tall! lie" i' t*e &ur&o"e or o%3e)ti4e
"ou#*t to %e attai'e, %! %ot* t*e e$&lo!er a', t*e e$&lo!ee
,uri'# "ai, &erio,.
T*e le'#t* of ti$e i" i$$aterial i' ,eter$i'i'# t*e )orrelati4e ri#*t"
of %ot* i' ,eali'# -it* ea)* ot*er ,uri'# "ai, &erio,.
G*ile t*e e$&lo!er1 a" "tate, earlier1 o%"er4e" t*e >t'e""1 &ro&riet!
a', e?)ie')! of a &ro%atio'er to a")ertai' -*et*er *e i" uali>e,
for &er$a'e't e$&lo!$e't1 t*e &ro%atio'er1 o' t*e ot*er1 "ee7" to
&ro4e to t*e e$&lo!er1 t*at *e *a" t*e uali>)atio'" to $eet t*e
rea"o'a%le "ta',ar," for &er$a'e't e$&lo!$e't.
It s we setted that the empoyer has the rght or s at berty to choose who
w be hred and who w be dened empoyment.
In that sense, t s wthn the exercse of the rght to seect hs empoyees that
the empoyer may set or x a probatonary perod wthn whch the atter may
test and observe the conduct of the former before hrng hm permanenty.
Page 11 of ./
As the aw now stands, Artce 281 of the Labor Code gves ampe authorty to
the empoyer to termnate a probatonary empoyee for a |ust cause or when
he fas to quafy as a reguar empoyee n accordance wth reasonabe
standards made known by the empoyer to the empoyee at the tme of hs
engagement.
There s nothng under Artce 281 of the Labor Code that woud precude the
empoyer from extendng a reguar or a permanent appontment to an
empoyee once the empoyer nds that the empoyee s quaed for reguar
empoyment even before the expraton of the probatonary perod.
Conversey, f the purpose sought by the empoyer s nether attaned nor
attanabe wthn the sad perod, Artce 281 of the Labor Code does not
kewse precude the empoyer from termnatng the probatonary
empoyment on |ustabe causes as n the nstant case.
ESCOR8IDO1 vs. UNI9ERSITC OF EAGUIO
FACTS
Pettoner Esperanza Escorpzo was ntay hred by respondent unversty on
|une 13, 1989 as a hgh schoo cassroom teacher.
Under the rues of the respondent unversty, appontment to teach durng
the rst two years at the unversty s probatonary n nature.
Durng the probaton perod, the teacher s observed and evauated to
determne hs competency.Attanment of a permanent status by a facuty
member s condtoned upon compance wth certan requrements, such as
passng the professona board examnaton for teachers (PBET).
On March 18, 1991, respondent unversty nformed Escorpzo that her
empoyment was beng termnated at the end of the schoo semester n vew
of her faure to pass the PBET.
But before the start of the schoo year 1991-1992, Escorpzo reapped and
peaded that she be gven another chance.
She tod the respondent schoo that she had |ust taken the PBET and hoped
to pass t.
As Escorpzos appea was favoraby consdered, she was aowed to teach
durng the schoo year 1991-1992.
However, her contnued empoyment was condtoned on her passng the
PBET. Unfortunatey, Escorpzo faed agan.
Undaunted, Escorpzo took the examnaton a thrd tme.At the end of the
schoo year, respondent unversty evauated the teachers performance to
determne who woud be n the st for the next schoo year. Escorpzo, not
havng passed the PBET yet, was not ncuded.
Page 16 of ./
Much ater, on |une 8, 1992, the resuts of the PBET were reeased and ths
tme Escorpzo passed sad examnaton. Nevertheess, on |une 15, 1992,
respondent unversty no onger renewed Escorpzos contract of empoyment
on the ground that she faed to quafy as a reguar teacher.
Ths prompted Escorpzo to e on |uy 16, 1992 a compant for ega
dsmssa, payment of backwages and renstatement aganst prvate
respondents.
ISSUE:
GON t*e ,i"$i""al -a" ille#al snce Escorpzo had attaned the status of a
reguar empoyee havng rendered very satsfactory performance as probatonary
teacher for two years, consstent wth the coectve barganng agreement between
the respondent unversty and pettoner unon of whch Escorpzo s a member.
HELD: NO.
E")or&iHo -a" 'ot ille#all! ,i"$i""e,. Her )o'tra)t $erel! e5&ire,.
Ratio:
A probatonary empoyee s one who, for a gven perod of tme, s beng
observed and evauated to determne whether or not he s quaed for
permanent empoyment.
A probatonary appontment ahords the empoyer an opportunty to observe
the sk, competence and atttude of a probatoner.
The word "probatonary", as used to descrbe the perod of empoyment,
mpes the purpose of the term or perod.
Whe the empoyer observes the tness, proprety and emcency of a
probatoner to ascertan whether he s quaed for permanent empoyment,
the probatoner at the same tme, seeks to prove to the empoyer that he has
the quacatons to meet the reasonabe standards for permanent
empoyment.
Rea"o'i'#:
The rues of the unversty ceary states that the rst two years at the
Unversty s probatonary n nature and the foowng condtons must concur
n order that a probatonary teacher may be extended a reguar appontment;
(1) the facuty member must satsfactory compete the
probatonary perod of four semesters or two years, wthn
whch hs performance sha be observed and evauated for
Page 1= of ./
the purpose of determnng hs competency and tness to be
extended permanent status; and
(2) the facuty member must pass the PBET or an equvaent cv
servce examnaton.
E")or&iHo faile, to $eet t*e 6', reuire$e't to %e a re#ular
e$&lo!ee -*i)* i" to &a"" t*e 8EET.
Though the CBA does not menton that passng the PBET s a
prerequste for attanng permanent status as a teacher.
Nevertheess, the aforected CBA provson must be read n con|uncton
wth statutory and admnstratve reguatons governng facuty
quacatons.
It s setted that an exstng aw enters nto and forms part of a vad
contract wthout the need for the partes expressy makng reference to
t.
Further, whe contractng partes may estabsh such stpuatons,
causes, terms and condtons as they may see t, such rght to
contract s sub|ect to mtaton that the agreement must not be
contrary to aw or pubc pocy.
DECS Order No. 38, seres of 1990, a reguaton mpementng
Presdenta Decree No. 1006|18| or the Decree Professonazng
Teachng stpuates that no person sha be aowed to engage n
teachng and/or act as a teacher uness he has regstered as
professona teacher wth the Natona Board for Teachers.
GRAND MOTORS COR8 9. MOLE 1=0 SCRA .=@ :1;8.<
FACTS:
Respondent Bacena was the Branch Manager of the pettoner companys
Ioo Branch. He was the Fnance Omcer of Warner, Barnes, & Co. (no.2 of the
company) when aegedy, Mr. Afredo Csneros (the then actng branch
manager of the company n Ioo) nduced hm to appy for the poston of
Branch Manager, as ther company (pettoner) was ookng for a CPA.
He apped for the |ob and was accepted. He started workng for the
pettoner company on Apr 1 but resgned from hs poston n Warner,
Barnes, & Co. ony on Apr 28.
1. However, he was termnated ony after workng for the company for 4 months
(Apr to August). Pettoner company aeged that
(a) he faed to submt prompty the monthy Income and Loss
Statement, Comparatve Pro|ectons & Actua Saes Report;
Page 1. of ./
(b) the Comparatve Performance Report dated |uy 8, 1980 on the
operaton of the Ioo Branch for the month of |une and May, 1980,
the Cash Saes of the Ioo Branch went down to P91,318.41 for |une,
1980, as compared wth the saes for the month of May, 1980 n the
sum of P174,697.77;
(c) Becena n voaton of company pocy and wthout cearance from
the head omce n Cebu, extended persona accounts n favor of 15
persons whch as of November, 1980 produced denquent accounts
amountng to P18,435.80; and
(d) Becena camed ack of knowedge of the vehcuar accdent caused
by a subordnate and faed to provde prompt admnstratve
dscpnary acton aganst the errng empoyee. They camed that
Bacena s ony a probatonary empoyee, whch woud be observed
by the company for 4-6 months and that Bacena knew that there s
a possbty that he woud not get the |ob.
2. Bacena on the other hand aeged that he s a reguar empoyee, athough
he was not abe to present any contract estabshng hs status as a reguar
empoyee; that the mishap involving the company's vehicle which was used
without his permission and knowledge could not be blamed upon him; that
the aeged reports whch he faed to send were not remnded to hm,
verbay or n wrtng; that hs saes for the perod Apr to August, 1980 s
hgher compared to that for the same perod n 1979; and that the aeged
accounts remanng unpad as of November 6, 1980 woud have been
coected n fu f he were st the Manager, among other thngs.
3. Regona Drector and Mnster of Labor rued n favor of Bacena, orderng hs
renstatement, payment of hs back wages, and other prveges.
ISSUE: WON pettoner may set the perod/obgaton of probaton
HELD: Yes.
The hghest prevous poston he attaned was that of Fnance Omcer.
Hs poston wth pettoner's Ioo Branch was hs rst as Manager.
Moreover, Warner, Barnes & Co., prvate respondent prevous empoyer, and
pettoner are engaged n dherent knd of busness.
Managng pettoner's Ioo Branch was entrey new experence for prvate
respondent. It was, therefore, necessary for prvate respondent to undergo a
perod of probaton to test hs quacaton, sk and experence."
I',ee,1 t*e e$&lo!er *a" t*e ri#*t or i" at li%ert! to )*oo"e a" to
-*o -ill %e *ire, a', -*o -ill %e ,e)li'e.
It i" -it*i' t*e e5er)i"e of t*i" ri#*t to "ele)t *i" e$&lo!ee" t*at t*e
e$&lo!er $a! "et or >5 &ro%atio'ar! &erio, -it*i' -*i)* t*e latter
Page 1B of ./
$a! te"t a', o%"er4e, t*e )o',u)t of t*e for$er %efore *iri'# *i$
&er$a'e'tl!.
T*e ri#*t of t*e la%orer to "ell *i" la%or to "u)* &er"o'" a" *e $a!
)*oo"e i"1 i' it" e""e')e1 t*e "a$e a" t*e ri#*t of a' e$&lo!er to
&ur)*a"e, la%or fro$ a'! &er"o' -*o$ it )*oo"e".
The empoyer and the empoyee have thus an equaty of rghts guaranteed
by the Consttuton.
'If the empoyer can compe the empoyer the empoyee to work aganst the
atter's w, ths s servtude. If the empoyee can compe the empoyer to
gve hm work aganst the empoyer's w, ths s oppresson.''
ORIENT EI8RESS 8LACEMENT 8HILI88INES vs NLRC
FACTS:
ANTONIO F. FLORES was hred as crane operator by ORIENT EXPRESS
PLACEMENT PHILIPPINES for 1 year, sub|ect to a 3-month probatonary perod.
However, after 1 month and 5 days n Saud Araba, Fores was repatrated to
the Phppnes.
Consequenty, he ed a compant wth the POEA for havng been termnated
from work for no vad reason.
ORIENT EXPRESS and NADRICO countered that Fores was termnated for poor
|ob performance.
On 7/14/1992, POEA rendered a decson n favor of companant. It was
observed that nether ORIENT EXPRESS nor NADRICO ponted out the
reasonabe standards of work requred of Fores by whch hs ncompetency
was ad|udged; much ess dd they specfy how the atter faed to ve up to
such reasonabe standards.
Hence, hs dsmssa was unwarranted.
On appea, NLRC amrmed the POEA decson.
In addton, t rued that the desgnaton of Fores as oorman nstead of crane
operator for whch he was hred voated hs empoyment contract.
The NLRC concuded that snce Fores never worked as crane operator, hs
foregn empoyer coud not have observed and assessed hs performance as
such and then come up wth a performance evauaton sheet, especay
consderng hs consstent cam that he was made to work as oorman
nstead.
Subsequent moton for reconsderaton ed by ORIENT EXPRESS and
NADRICO was dened.
Hence, ths petton.
Page 1@ of ./
ISSUE: WON the dsmssa of FLORES s vad.
HELD:
Under Art. 281 of the Labor Code, the servces of an empoyee hred on a
probatonary bass $a! %e ter$i'ate, when he fas to quafy as a reguar
empoyee n accordance -it* rea"o'a%le "ta',ar," $a,e 7'o-' %! t*e
e$&lo!er to t*e e$&lo!ee at t*e ti$e of *i" e'#a#e$e't.
However, the Court cannot sustan hs dsmssa on ths ground because
&etitio'er faile, to "&e)if! t*e rea"o'a%le "ta',ar," %! -*i)*
&ri4ate re"&o',e'tJ" alle#e, &oor &erfor$a')e -a" e4aluate,1 $u)*
le"" to &ro4e t*at "u)* "ta',ar," -ere $a,e 7'o-' to *i$ at t*e
ti$e of *i" re)ruit$e't i' Ma'ila.
Both prvate respondent's Agency-Worker Agreement wth ORIENT EXPRESS
and NADRICO never mentoned that:
o He must rst take and pass a Crane Operators' Lcense Examnaton n
Saud Araba before he woud be aowed to even touch a crane
o He woud be assgned as oorman pendng reease of the resuts of the
examnaton or n the event that he faed;
o He woud be sub|ected to a performance evauaton by hs superor 1
month after hs hrng to determne whether the company was
amenabe to contnung wth hs empoyment.
Hence, respondent Fores coud not be fauted for precsey harborng the
mpresson that he was hred as crane operator for a dente perod of 1 year
to commence upon hs arrva at the work-ste and to termnate at the end of
1 year.
No ot*er )o',itio' -a" lai, out e5)e&t t*at *e -a" to %e o'
&ro%atio' for = $o't*". No "ta',ar, -*at"oe4er %! -*i)* "u)*
&ro%atio'ar! &erio, )oul, %e *ur,le, -a" "&e)i>e, a', $a,e 7'o-'
to *i$.
Due process dctates that an empoyee be apprsed beforehand of the
condton of hs empoyment and of the terms of advancement theren.
Precsey, mpct n Art. 281 of the Code s the requrement that reasonabe
standards be prevousy made known by the empoyer to the probatonary
empoyee at the tme of hs engagement, such an essenta requrement was
not met by pettoner, even assumng that Fores' aeged unsatsfactory
performance was true.
Besdes, unsatsfactory performance s not one of the |ust causes for
dsmssa under the Labor Code.
DIS8OSITION: The assaed Decson and Resouton of NLRC are AFFIRMED. Costs
aganst pettoner Orent Express Pacement Phppnes.
Page 1/ of ./
Mit"u%i"*i Motor" Cor& 4" C*r!"ler 8*il. La%or U'io' :600.<
Fa)t":
Mtsubsh Motors Phppnes Corporaton (MMPC) s a domestc corporaton
engaged n the assemby and dstrbuton of Mtsubsh motor vehces.
Chryser Phppnes Labor Unon (CPLU) s a egtmate abor organzaton and
the duy certed barganng agent of the houry-pad reguar rank and e
empoyees of MMPC.
Neson Paras was a member of CPLU whe wfe, Cece Paras, was the
Presdent of the Chryser Phppnes Saared Empoyees Unon (CPSU).
Neson Paras was rst empoyed by MMPC as a shutte bus drver. He resgned
and went to Saud Araba to work as a dese mechanc and heavy equpment
operator n from 1982 to 1993.
When he returned to the Phppnes, he was re-hred as a weder-fabrcator at
MMPC toong shop from October 3,1994 to October 31, 1994.
On October 29, 1994, hs contract was renewed from November 1, 1994 up to
March 3, 1995.
Sometme n May of 1996, Paras was re-hred on a probatonary bass as a
manufacturng tranee at the Pant Engneerng Mantenance Department.
He and the new and re-hred empoyees were gven an orentaton on May 15,
1996 respectng the company's hstory, corporate phosophy, organzatona
structure, and company rues and reguatons, ncudng the company
standards for reguarzaton, code of conduct and company-provded benets.
Paras started reportng for work on May 27, 1996.
He was assgned at the pant ovens, ar make-up and conveyors. As part of
the MMPC's pocy, Paras was evauated by hs mmedate supervsors after
sx (6) months, and receved an average ratng.
Later, hs supervsor nformed Paras that based on hs performance ratng, he
woud be reguarzed.
However, the Department and Dvson Managers, revewed the performance
evauaton made on Paras.
They unanmousy agreed, aong wth Paras' mmedate supervsors, that the
performance of Paras was unsatsfactory.
As a consequence, Paras was not consdered for reguarzaton.
On November 26, 1996, he receved a Notce of Termnaton dated November
25, 1996, nformng hm that hs servces were termnated ehectve the sad
date snce he faed to meet the requred company standards for
reguarzaton.
I""ue: Whether or not Paras was aready a reguar empoyee on November 26,
1996.
Page 18 of ./
Hel,: Yes, Paras was aready a reguar empoyee.
A' e$&lo!er1 i' t*e e5er)i"e of it" $a'a#e$e't &rero#ati4e1 $a!
*ire a' e$&lo!ee o' a &ro%atio'ar! %a"i" i' or,er to ,eter$i'e *i"
>t'e"" to &erfor$ -or7.
U',er Arti)le 681 of t*e La%or Co,e1 t*e e$&lo!er $u"t i'for$ t*e
e$&lo!ee of t*e "ta',ar," for -*i)* *i" e$&lo!$e't $a! %e
)o'"i,ere, for re#ulariHatio'.
Su)* &ro%atio'ar! &erio,1 u'le"" )o4ere, %! a' a&&re'ti)e"*i&
a#ree$e't1 "*all 'ot e5)ee, "i5 :@< $o't*" fro$ t*e ,ate t*e
e$&lo!ee "tarte, -or7i'#.
T*e e$&lo!ee(" "er4i)e" $a! %e ter$i'ate, for 3u"t )au"e or for *i"
failure to ualif! a" a re#ular e$&lo!ee %a"e, o' rea"o'a%le
"ta',ar," $a,e 7'o-' to *i$.
Respondent Paras was empoyed as a management tranee on a probatonary
bass. Durng the orentaton conducted on May 15, 1996, he was apprsed of
the standards upon whch hs reguarzaton woud be based.
He reported for work on May 27, 1996. As per the company's pocy, the
probatonary perod was from three (3) months to a maxmum of sx (6)
months.
Appyng Artce 13 of the Cv Code, the probatonary perod of sx (6)
months conssts of one hundred eghty (180) days.
Ths s n conformty wth paragraph one, Artce 13 of the Cv Code, whch
provdes that the months whch are not desgnated by ther names sha be
understood as consstng of thrty (30) days each.
The number of months n the probatonary perod, sx (6), shoud then be
mutped by the number of days wthn a month, thrty (30); hence, the
perod of one hundred eghty (180) days.
As ceary provded for n the ast paragraph of Artce 13, n computng a
perod, the rst day sha be excuded and the ast day ncuded.
Thus, t*e o'e *u',re, ei#*t! :180< ,a!" )o$$e')e, o' Ma! 6/1
1;;@1 a', e',e, o' No4e$%er 6=1 1;;@.
T*e ter$i'atio' letter ,ate, No4e$%er 6B1 1;;@ -a" "er4e, o'
re"&o',e't 8ara" o'l! at =:00 a.$. of No4e$%er 6@1 1;;@.He -a"1 %!
t*e'1 alrea,! a re#ular e$&lo!ee of t*e &etitio'er u',er Arti)le 681
of t*e La%or Co,e.
ALCIRA vs. NLRC
FACTS:
Page 1; of ./
Pettoner Radn C. Acra was hred by respondent Mddeby as engneerng
support servces supervsor on a probatonary perod for sx months.
Despte the ndcaton of probatonary perod n the appontment paper, the
dates ndcated n the copes n the possesson of the pettoner and the
respondent, were dherent, May 20, 1996 and May 27, 1996, respectvey.
On November 20, 1996, unhappy wth pettoners performance, respondent
Mddeby termnated the formers servces.
But accordng to the pettoner he s aready a reguar empoyee ehectve
November 16, 1996, usng Artce 13 of the Cv Code that one month s
composed of 30 days, sx months tota 180 days.
Hence, usng May 20, 1996 as the reference pont, t was aready consdered
a dsmssa snce t was made after the apse of hs probatonary
empoyment.
I""ue: WON PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT IS EMPLOYMENT FOR A DEFINITE
PERIOD.
HELD:
Secton 6 (d) of Rue 1 of the Impementng Rues of Book VI of the Labor
Code (Department Order No. 10, Seres of 1997) provdes that:
(d< I' all )a"e" of &ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!$e't1 t*e
e$&lo!er "*all $a7e 7'o-' to t*e e$&lo!ee t*e
"ta',ar," u',er -*i)* *e -ill ualif! a" a re#ular
e$&lo!ee at t*e ti$e of *i" e'#a#e$e't. G*ere 'o
"ta',ar," are $a,e 7'o-' to t*e e$&lo!ee at t*at ti$e1
*e "*all %e ,ee$e, a re#ular e$&lo!ee.
We hod that respondent Mddeby substantay noted pettoner of the
standards to quafy as a reguar empoyee when t apprsed hm, at the start
of hs empoyment, that t woud evauate hs supervsory sks after ve
months.
Conversey, an empoyer s deemed to substantay compy wth the rue on
notcaton of standards f he apprses the empoyee that he w be sub|ected
to a performance evauaton on a partcuar date after hs hrng. We agree
wth the abor arbter when he rued that:
In the nstant case, pettoner cannot successfuy say that he
was never nformed by prvate respondent of the standards that
he must satsfy n order to be converted nto reguar status. Ths
rans (sic) counter to the agreement between the partes that
Page 60 of ./
after ve months of servce the pettoners performance woud
be evauated. It s ony but natura that the evauaton shoud be
made vs--vs the performance standards for the |ob. Prvate
respondent Trfona Mamarado speaks of such standard n her
amdavt referrng to the fact that pettoner dd not perform we
n hs assgned work and hs atttude was beow par compared to
the companys standard requred of hm.
EUISER 9. LEOGARDO 1=1 SCRA 1B1 :1;8.<
FACTS:
Pettoners were empoyed by the prvate respondent GENERAL TELEPHONE
DIRECTORY COMPANY as saes representatves and charged wth the duty of
soctng advertsements for ncuson n a teephone drectory.
1. The records show that pettoners Iumnada Ver Buser and Ma. Mercedes P.
Intengan entered nto an "Empoyment Contract (on Probatonary Status)" on
May 26, 1980 wth prvate respondent, a corporaton engaged n the busness
of pubcaton and crcuaton of the drectory of the Phppne Long Dstance
Teephone Company. Pettoner Ma. Ceca Ro-Acuna entered nto the same
empoyment contract on |une 11, 1980 wth the prvate respondent.
2. Among others, the "Empoyment Contract (On Probatonary Status)" ncuded
the foowng common provsons:
The company hereby empoys the empoyee as teephone
representatve on a probatonary status for a perod of eghteen
(18) months, .e. from May 1980 to October 1981, ncusve. It s
understood that darng the probatonary perod of empoyment,
the Empoyee may be termnated at the peasure of the
company wthout the necessty of gvng notce of termnaton or
the payment of termnaton pay. The Empoyee recognzes the
fact that the nature of the teephone saes representatve's |ob s
such that the company woud be abe to determne hs true
character, conduct and seng capabtes ony after the
pubcaton of the drectory, and that t takes about eghteen
(18) months before hs worth as a teephone saw representatve
can be fuy evauated nasmuch as the advertsement socted
by hm for a partcuar year are pubshed n the drectory ony
the foowng year.
3. Prvate respondent prescrbed saes quotas to be accompshed or met by the
pettoners. Fang to meet ther respectve saes quotas, the pettoners were
dsmssed from the servce by the prvate respondent.
Page 61 of ./
4. Pettoners, then, ed a compant for ega dsmssa and cams for back
wages, earned commssons and other benets
5. Regona drector of MOLE dsmssed the compants of pettoners except for
the cam for aowances.
6. Deputy mnster Leogardy of MOLE amrmed the decson of the regona
drector ctng that the pettoners have not attaned permanent status snce
prvate respondent was |usted n requrng a onger perod of probaton.
Leogardo kewse rued that the termnaton was vad
ISSUE: GON t*e &etitio'er" are &ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!ee".
HELD:
Generay, the probatonary perod of empoyment s mted to sx (6)
months.
The excepton to ths genera rue s When the partes to an empoyment
contract may agree otherwse, such as when the same s estabshed by
company pocy or when the same s requred by the nature of work to be
performed by the empoyee.
In the atter case, there s recognton of the exercse of managera
prerogatves n requrng a onger perod of probatonary empoyment, such
as n the present case where the probatonary perod was set for eghteen
(18) months, .e. from May, 1980 to October, 1981 ncusve, especay where
the empoyee must earn a partcuar knd of work such as seng, or when
the |ob requres certan quacatons, sks, experence or tranng.
Pocy Instructon No. 11 of the Mnster of Labor and Empoyment has
cared any and a doubts on the perod of probatonary empoyment. It
states as foows:
Probatonary Empoyment has been the sub|ect of
msunderstandng n some quarter. Some peope beeve sx (6)
months s the probatonary perod n a cases. On the other
hand empoys who have aready served the probatonary perod
are sometmes requred to serve agan on probaton.
Under the Labor Code, sx (6) months s the genera
probatonary perod ' but the probatonary perod s actuay the
perod needed to determne tness for the |ob. Ths perod, for
ack of a better measurement s deemed to be the perod
needed to earn the |ob.
Page 66 of ./
The purpose of ths pocy s to protect the worker at the same
tme enabe the empoyer to make a meanngfu empoyee
seecton. Ths purpose shoud be kept n mnd n enforcng ths
provson of the Code. Ths ssuance sha take ehect
mmedatey.
The very contracts of empoyment sgned and acquesced to by the
pettoners speccay ndcate that "the company hereby empoys the
empoyee as teephone saes representatve on a probatonary status for a
perod of eghteen (18) months, .e. from May 1980 to October 1981,
ncusve.
Ths stpuaton s not contrary to aw, moras and pubc pocy.
(Duraton / Excepton)
FACTS:
mora damages.
empoyment.
Page 6= of ./
HELD: NO.
faure to quafy as a reguar member of pettoners teachng stah n
accordance wth ts reasonabe standards.
teacher-student reatonshp and teachng technques.
Labor Code.
The abor arbters decson s erroneous. The award of saary for the
unexpred porton of the probatonary empoyment on the ground that a
probatonary empoyment for 6 months s an empoyment for a "dente
perod" whch requres the empoyer to exhaust the entre probatonary
perod to gve the empoyee the opportunty to meet the requred standards.
A probatonary empoyee s one who s on tra by an empoyer durng whch
the empoyer determnes whether or not he s quaed for permanent
empoyment.
A probatonary appontment s made to ahord the empoyer an opportunty to
observe the tness of a probatoner whe at work, and to ascertan whether
he w become a proper and emcent empoyee.
The word "probatonary," as used to descrbe the perod of empoyment,
mpes the purpose of the term or perod, but not ts ength.
Beng n the nature of a "tra perod" the essence of a probatonary perod of
empoyment fundamentay es n the purpose or ob|ectve sought to be
attaned by both the empoyer and the empoyee durng sad perod.
T*e le'#t* of ti$e i" i$$aterial i' ,eter$i'i'# t*e )orrelati4e ri#*t"
of %ot* i' ,eali'# -it* ea)* ot*er ,uri'# "ai, &erio,.
Whe the empoyer observes the tness, proprety and emcency of a
probatoner to ascertan whether he s quaed for permanent empoyment,
the probatoner, on the other, seeks to prove to the empoyer, t*at *e *a"
t*e uali>)atio'" to $eet t*e rea"o'a%le "ta',ar," for &er$a'e't
e$&lo!$e't.
Not*i'# -oul, &re)lu,e t*e e$&lo!er fro$ e5te',i'# a re#ular or a
&er$a'e't a&&oi't$e't to a' e$&lo!ee o')e t*e e$&lo!er >',"
t*at t*e e$&lo!ee i" uali>e, for re#ular e$&lo!$e't e4e' %efore
t*e e5&iratio' of t*e &ro%atio'ar! &erio,.
crcumventon of the rghts of Gaang when she was nformed of her
termnaton.
Her dsmssa does not appear to us as arbtrary, fancfu or whmsca.
Page 6. of ./
She was duy noted, oray and n wrtng, that her servces were termnated
for faure to meet the prescrbed standards of pettoner as reected n the
performance evauaton conducted by her supervsors durng the teacher
evauatng program.
n ths regard s a egtmate exercse of ts prerogatve to seect whom to hre
or refuse empoyment for the success of ts program or undertakng.
The ower court abused ts dscreton when t ordered ICMC to Gaang her
saary for the unexpred three-month porton of her sx-month probatonary
empoyment when she was vady termnated durng her probatonary
empoyment.
To "a')tio' "u)* a)tio' -oul, 'ot o'l! %e u'3u"t1 %ut o&&re""i4e o'
t*e &art of t*e e$&lo!er.
Holi,a! I'' Ma'ila 4" NLRC
Fa)t":
Eena Honasan apped for empoyment wth the Hoday Inn and was on Apr
15, 1991, accepted for "on-the-|ob tranng" as a teephone operator for a
perod of three weeks.

For her servces, she receved food and transportaton aowance.

On May 13, 1992, after competng her tranng, she was empoyed on a
"probatonary bass" for a perod of sx months endng November 12, 1991.

Her empoyment contract stpuated that the Hote coud termnate her
probatonary empoyment at any tme pror to the expraton of the sx-month
perod n the event of her faure (a) to earn or progress n her |ob; (b) to
fathfuy observe and compy wth the hote rues and the nstructons and
orders of her superors; or (c) to perform her dutes accordng to hote
standards.
Page 6B of ./
On November 8, 1991, four days before the expraton of the stpuated

deadne, Hoday Inn noted her of her dsmssa, on the ground that her
performance had not come up to the standards of the Hote.

Honasan ed a compant for ega dsmssa, camng that she was aready
a reguar empoyee at the tme of her separaton and so was entted to fu
securty of tenure.
I""ue: Honasan was aready a reguar empoyee at the tme of her dsmssa, whch
was made 4 days days before the expraton of the probaton perod.
Hel,:
We nd n the Hote's system of doube probaton a transparent scheme to
crcumvent the pan mandate of the aw and make t easer for t to dsmss
ts empoyees even after they sha have aready passed probaton.
The pettoners had ampe tme to summary termnate Honasan's servces
durng her perod of probaton f they were deemed unsatsfactory.
The empoyer has absoute dscreton n hrng hs empoyees n accordance
wth hs standards of competence and probty.
Ths s hs prerogatve.
Once hred, however, the empoyees are entted to the protecton of the aw
even durng the probaton perod and more so after they have become
members of the reguar force.
The empoyer does not have the same freedom n the hrng of hs empoyees
as n ther dsmssa.
Ho'a"a' -a" &la)e, %! t*e &etitio'er o' &ro%atio' t-i)e1 >r"t
,uri'# *er o'Ft*eF3o% trai'i'# for t*ree -ee7"1 a', 'e5t ,uri'#
a'ot*er &erio, of "i5 $o't*"1 o"te'"i%l! i' a))or,a')e -it* Arti)le
681. Her &ro%atio' )learl! e5)ee,e, t*e &erio, of "i5 $o't*"
&re")ri%e, %! t*i" arti)le.
Probaton s the perod durng whch the empoyer may determne f the
empoyee s quaed for possbe ncuson n the reguar force. In the case at
bar, the perod was for three weeks, durng Honasan's on-the-|ob tranng.
When her servces were contnued after ths tranng, the pettoners n ehect
recognzed that she had passed probaton and was quaed to be a reguar
empoyee.
Honasan was certany under observaton durng her three-week on-the-|ob
tranng.
If her servces proved unsatsfactory then, she coud have been dropped as
eary as durng that perod.
But she was not.
Page 6@ of ./
On the contrary, her servces were contnued, presumaby because they were
acceptabe, athough she was formay paced ths tme on probaton.
Even f t be supposed that the probaton dd not end wth the three-week
perod of on-the-|ob tranng, there s st no reason why that perod shoud
not be ncuded n the stpuated sx-month perod of probaton.
Honasan was accepted for on-the-|ob tranng on Apr 15, 1991.
Assumng that her probaton coud be extended beyond that date, t
nevertheess coud contnue ony up to October 15, 1991, after the end of sx
months from the earer date.
Under ths more enent approach, she had become a reguar empoyee of
Hoday Inn and acqured fu securty of tenure as of October 15, 1991.
The consequence s that she coud no onger be summary separated on the
ground nvoked by the pettoners.
As a reguar empoyee, she had acqured the protecton of Artce 279 of the
Labor Code.
EERNARDO 9 NLRC :FAR EAST EANK AND TRUST COM8ANC<
FACTS:
43 Companants are deaf-mutes who were hred by respondent Far East Bank
and Trust Co. as Money Sorters and Counters through an "Empoyment
Contract for Handcapped Workers".
FAR EAST dscamed that BERNARDO ET AL were reguar empoyees AND that
they were hred temporary under a speca empoyment arrangement due to
"pakusap".
NLRC amrmed rung of the abor arbter that BERNARDO ET AL coud not be
deemed reguar empoyees under Art. 280 of the Labor Code.
ISSUES: GON NLRC i" #uilt! of #ra4e a%u"e of ,i")retio' i' *ol,i'# t*at:
1. money sorters and counters workng n a bank are not reguar
empoyees; and
2. empoyment contracts sgned and renewed by the pettoners, whch
provde for a perod of 6 months, were vad.
HELD:
1. YES. Ony the empoyees, who worked for more than 6 months and whose
contracts were renewed are deemed reguar. Hence, ther dsmssa from
empoyment was ega.
Page 6/ of ./
Rea"o'i'#:
Accordng to FAR EAST, the empoyment contracts were prepared n
accordance wth A80 LC, whch provdes Art. 80. Empoyment agreement.
Any empoyer who empoys handcapped workers sha enter nto an
empoyment agreement wth them, whch agreement sha ncude:
(c) The duraton of empoyment perod; and
FAR EAST entered nto contract wth a tota of 56 handcapped workers and
renewed the contracts of 37 of them. In fact, two of them worked from 1988
to 1993.
Very, t*e re'e-al of t*e )o'tra)t" of t*e *a',i)a&&e, -or7er" a',
t*e *iri'# of ot*er" lea, to t*e )o')lu"io' t*at t*eir ta"7" -ere
%e'e>)ial a', 'e)e""ar! to t*e %a'7.
More mportant, t*e"e fa)t" "*o- t*at t*e! -ere uali>e, to &erfor$
t*e re"&o'"i%ilitie" of t*eir &o"itio'".
I' ot*er -or,"1 t*eir ,i"a%ilit! ,i, 'ot re',er t*e$ u'uali>e, or
u'>t for t*e ta"7" a""i#'e, to t*e$.
Magna Carta for Dsabed Persons mandates that a quaed dsabed
empoyee shoud be gven the same terms and condtons of empoyment as
a quaed abe-boded person.
Snce the Magna Carta accords them the rghts of quaed abe-boded
persons, they are thus covered by Artce 280 of the Labor Code.
The task of countng and sortng bs s necessary and desrabe to the
busness of respondent bank.
Wth the excepton of sxteen of them, BERNARDO ET AL performed these
tasks for more than sx months.
A" *el, %! t*e Court1 LArti)le" 680 a', 681 of t*e La%or Co,e &ut a'
e', to t*e &er'i)iou" &ra)ti)e of $a7i'# &er$a'e't )a"ual" of our
lo-l! e$&lo!ee" %! t*e "i$&le e5&e,ie't of e5te',i'# to t*e$
&ro%atio'ar! a&&oi't$e't"1 a, i'>'itu$ .L
T*e )o'tra)t "i#'e, %! &etitio'er" i" a7i' to a &ro%atio'ar!
e$&lo!$e't1 ,uri'# -*i)* t*e %a'7 ,eter$i'e, t*e e$&lo!ee"J
>t'e"" for t*e 3o%.
G*e' t*e %a'7 re'e-e, t*e )o'tra)t after t*e la&"e of t*e "i5F
$o't* &ro%atio'ar! &erio,1 t*e e$&lo!ee" t*ere%! %e)a$e re#ular
e$&lo!ee".
No e$&lo!er i" allo-e, to ,eter$i'e i',e>'itel! t*e >t'e"" of it"
e$&lo!ee".
As reguar empoyees, the 27 pettoners are entted to securty of tenure;
that s, ther servces may be termnated ony for a |ust or authorzed cause.
Page 68 of ./
Therefore, when FAR EAST faed to show such cause, they are deemed
egay dsmssed and entted to back wages and renstatement wthout oss
of senorty rghts and other prveges.
Consderng that the |ob of money sortng s no onger avaabe because t
has been assgned back to the teers to whom t orgnay beonged,
pettoners are hereby awarded separaton pay n eu of renstatement.
MITSUEISHI MOTORS 9. CHRCSLERLAEOR UNION AND NEIL 8ARAS .==
SCRA 60@ :600.<
ISSUE: GON 8ara" i" a re#ular e$&lo!ee.
HELD: Ce".
An empoyer, n the exercse of ts management prerogatve, may hre an
empoyee on a probatonary bass n order to determne hs tness to perform
work. Under Art 281 Labor Code, the empoyer must nform the empoyee of
the standards for whch hs empoyment may be consdered for
reguarzaton.
Su)* &ro%atio'ar! &erio,1 u'le"" )o4ere, %! a' a&&re'ti)e"*i&
a#ree$e't1 "*all 'ot e5)ee, "i5 :@< $o't*" fro$ t*e ,ate t*e
e$&lo!ee "tarte, -or7i'#. T*e e$&lo!ee(" "er4i)e" $a! %e
ter$i'ate, for 3u"t )au"e or for *i" failure to ualif! a" a re#ular
e$&lo!ee %a"e, o' rea"o'a%le "ta',ar," $a,e 7'o-' to *i$.
Respondent Paras was empoyed as a management tranee on a probatonary
bass. Durng the orentaton conducted on May 15, 1996, he was apprsed of
the standards upon whch hs reguarzaton woud be based.
He reported for work on May 27, 1996. As per the companys pocy, the
probatonary perod was from three (3) months to a maxmum of sx (6)
months.
Appyng Art 13 NCC, the probatonary perod of sx (6) months conssts of
one hundred eghty (180) days. Ths s n conformty wth paragraph one, Art
13 NCC, whch provdes that the months whch are not desgnated by ther
names sha be understood as consstng of thrty (30) days each.
The number of months n the probatonary perod, sx (6), shoud then be
mutped by the number of days wthn a month, thrty (30); hence, the
perod of one hundred eghty (180) days.
As ceary provded for n the ast paragraph of Artce 13, in computing a
period, the frst day shall be excluded and the last day included.
T*u"1 t*e o'e *u',re, ei#*t! :180< ,a!" )o$$e')e, o' Ma! 6/1
1;;@1 a', e',e, o' No4e$%er 6=1 1;;@. T*e ter$i'atio' letter
,ate, No4e$%er 6B1 1;;@ -a" "er4e, o' re"&o',e't 8ara" o'l! at
Page 6; of ./
=:00 a.$. of No4e$%er 6@1 1;;@. He -a"1 %! t*e'1 alrea,! a re#ular
e$&lo!ee of t*e &etitio'er u',er Arti)le 681 of t*e La%or Co,e.
RADIN C. ALCIRA vs NLRC1 MIDDLEEC 8HILI88INES COR8ORATIONMFRANK
THOMAS1 IA9IER G. 8ENA and TRIFONA F. MAMARADLO
FACTS
Acra was hred by Mddeby as an engneerng support servces supervsor
on a probatonary bass for 6 months. Apparenty unhappy wth Acras
performance, the company termnated Acras servces. The ssue arses on
whether the termnaton occurred before or after the 6-month probatonary
perod.
Both have dherent contentons as to the hrng dates:
o Acra: May 20, 1996
o Mddeby: May 27, 1996
Further, the appontment paper ndcated that the status was "probatonary"
and that "after 5 months, performance sha be evauated and any
ad|ustment sha depend on work performance."
However, on November 20, 1996, Acra was not aowed to work. Thereafter,
Acra ed a compant wth the Labor Arbter, contendng that he was
aready a reguar empoyee as of the date he was dsmssed.
The company presented evdence that showed Acras poor performance,
tardness, absences, and voatons of company rues on wearng of unform
durng the probatonary perod, and sad that snce he faed to meet the
standards, Acras appcaton to become a reguar empoyee was dened.
LA, NLRC, and CA a rued n favor of the company, uphodng the vadty of
the dsmssa.
ISSUES:
1. WON pettoner was aowed to work beyond hs probatonary perod, and was
therefore aready a reguar empoyee at the tme of hs dsmssa.
2. WON Mddeby nformed pettoner of standards for reguarzaton at the start
of hs empoyment.
3. WON Acra was egay dsmssed when Mddeby opted not to renew hs
contract on the ast day of the probatonary perod.
RULING
1. NO. The computaton of the 6-month probatonary perod s reckoned from
the date of appontment up to the same caendar date of the 6th month
Page =0 of ./
foowng, thus dsmssa on November 20, 1996 was we wthn the
probatonary perod.
The computaton of Acra (usng 30 days x 6 months = 180 days) s
wrong. As hed n CALS Poultry Supply Corp v oco: Our computaton
of the 6-month probatonary perod s reckoned from the date of
appontment up to the same caendar date of the 6th month foowng.
In short, snce the number of days n each partcuar month was
rreevant, Acra was st a probatonary empoyee when Mddeby
opted not to "reguarze" hm on November 20, 1996.
6. CES. Secton 6 (d) of Rue 1 of the Impementng Rues of Book VI of the
Labor Code provdes that: (d) In a cases of probatonary empoyment, the
empoyer sha make 7'o-' to t*e e$&lo!ee t*e "ta',ar," u',er
-*i)* *e -ill ualif! a" a re#ular e$&lo!ee at t*e ti$e of *i"
e'#a#e$e't. Where no standards are made known to the empoyee at that
tme, he sha be deemed a reguar empoyee. An empoyer s deemed to
substantay compy wth the rue on notcaton of standards if *e a&&ri"e"
t*e e$&lo!ee t*at *e -ill %e "u%3e)te, to a &erfor$a')e e4aluatio'
o' a &arti)ular ,ate after *i" *iri'#.
Mddeby substantay noted the pettoner of the standards of a
reguar empoyee when t apprsed hm, at the start of hs empoyment,
that t woud evauate hs supervsory sks after 5 months.
the appontment paper contaned the remark that Acra woud be
sub|ected to a performance evauaton s enough notce that the
probatonary bass of hs empoyment was condtona (condtoned
upon hs meetng of performance standards)
=. NO. Athough probatonary empoyees are aso accorded securty of tenure,
ths protecton ends upon expraton of the probatonary perod.
It s setted that even f probatonary empoyees do not en|oy
permanent status, they are accorded the consttutona protecton of
securty of tenure.
Ths means they may ony be termnated for |ust cause or when they
otherwse fa to quafy as reguar empoyees n accordance wth
reasonabe standards made known to them by the empoyer at the
tme of ther engagement.
But we have aso rued n !anlimos, et" al" vs" #ational Labor elations
Commission that ths consttutona protecton ends on the expraton
of the probatonary perod.
On that date, the partes are free to ether renew or termnate ther
contract of empoyment.
Page =1 of ./
In ths case, Mddeby exercsed ts opton not to renew the contract
when t nformed Acra on the ast day of hs probatonary empoyment
that t dd not ntend to grant hm a reguar status.
DIS8OSITION: Petton DENIED.
ART. 281. P$%A&'$#A( )!PL$(!)#&. Probatonary empoyment sha not exceed
sx (6) months from the date the empoyee started workng, uness t s covered by
an apprentceshp agreement stpuatng a onger perod. The servces of an
empoyee who has been engaged on a probatonary bass may be termnated for a
|ust cause or when he fas to quafy as a reguar empoyee n accordance wth
reasonabe standards made known by the empoyer to the empoyee at the tme of
hs engagement. An empoyee who s aowed to work after a probatonary perod
sha be consdered a reguar empoyee.
Mari-a"a Ma'ufa)turi'# I') 4" Leo#ar,o :1;8;<
Fa)t":
Dequa was hred on probaton by Marwasa as a genera utty worker on
|an.10, 1979. After the probatonary perod of sx months, MArwasa nformed
hm that hs work had proved unsatsfactory and had faed to meet the
requred standards and to gve hm a chance to mprove hs performance and
quafy for reguar empoyment, nstead of dspensng wth hs servce then
and there, wth hs wrtten consent Marwasa extended hs probaton perod
for another three months from |uy 10 to October 9, 1979.
Hs performance, however, dd not mprove and on that account Marwasa
termnated hs empoyment at the end of the extended perod.
I""ue: WON empoyer and empoyee may by agreement extend the probatonary
perod of empoyment beyond the sx months prescrbed n Artce 282 of the
Labor Code.
Hel,: Ce".
An extenson of the probatonary perod of empoyment may awfuy be
covenanted, notwthstandng the seemngy restrctve anguage of Artce
282.
%uiser vs" Leogardo, *r. recognzed agreements stpuatng onger
probatonary perods as consttutng awfu exceptons to the statutory
prescrpton mtng such perods to sx months, when t uphed as vad an
Page =6 of ./
empoyment contract between an empoyer and two of ts empoyees that
provded for an egthteen-month probaton perod.
Ge'erall!1 t*e &ro%atio'ar! &erio, of e$&lo!$e't i" li$ite, to "i5
:@< $o't*". T*e e5)e&tio' to t*i" #e'eral rule i" -*e' t*e &artie" to
a' e$&lo!$e't )o'tra)t $a! a#ree ot*er-i"e1 "u)* a" -*e' t*e
"a$e i" e"ta%li"*e, %! )o$&a'! &oli)! or -*e' t*e "a$e i" reuire,
%! t*e 'ature of -or7 to %e &erfor$e, %! t*e e$&lo!ee.
The extenson of Dequa's probaton was ex gratia, an act of beraty on the
part of hs empoyer ahordng hm a second chance to make good after
havng ntay faed to prove hs worth as an empoyee.
Such an act cannot now un|usty be turned aganst sad empoyer's account
to compe t to keep on ts payro one who coud not perform accordng to ts
work standards.
The aw, surey, was never meant to produce such an nequtabe resut.
By vountary agreeng to an extenson of the probatonary perod, Dequa n
ehect waved any benet attachng to the competon of sad perod f he st
faed to make the grade durng the perod of extenson.
CEEU STE9EDORING vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR
FACTS:
Companants Geg and Ou|ano (COMPLAINANTS) were former empoyees of
the Cebu Customs Arrastre Servce (CCAS).
Pursuant to an Admnstratve Order by the Bureau of Customs, CCAS was
aboshed "for the reason that the ob|ectves for whch t was created had
aready been attaned".
Consequenty, a the empoyees of CCAS, ncudng COMPLAINANTS, were
gven ther termnaton separaton pay by the Bureau.
After the aboton, a the empoyees of CCAS, ncudng COMPLAINANTS,
were absorbed by CSCI wth the same postons that they hed n the CCAS.
Amost 6 months ater, however, COMPLAINANTS were dsmssed by CSCI
wthout pror cearance.
COMPLAINANTS consequenty ed an acton for renstatement wth
backwages wth the Labor Regona Omce.
The Regona Drector rued n COMPLAINANTS favor, whch rung was
amrmed on appea by the then Mnstry of Labor and, subsequenty, by the
Omce of the Presdent.

ISSUES:
Page == of ./
1. WON the CSCI was dened due process due to the ack of hearng before the
Regona Drector and COMPLAINANTS faure to e ther respectve poston
papers.
2. WON the COMPLAINANTS were merey casuas and coud, therefore, be
termnated even wthout pror cearance from the then Mnstry of Labor and
wthout enttement to separaton pay.
3. WON the postons occuped by COMPLAINANTS wth CCAS are dentca wth the
postons aready ed up and beng dscharged n the man omce of CSCI,
COMPLAINANTS may be termnated for redundancy.
HELD:
1. NO
The rght to be heard, as a premnary step essenta to the rendton of an
enforceabe |udgment, consttutes a basc eement of the consttutona
requrement of due process of aw.
However, whe CSCI was not ahorded an opportunty to be heard by ora
argument on ts poston paper due to ts absence at the schedued hearng, t
s kewse true that t was requred to, as n fact t actuay dd, submt a
poston paper whch, together wth the evdence presented durng the
hearng, became the bass of the questoned order of the Regona Drector.
From ths order, CSCI appeaed to the Labor Mnster, and then to the Omce of
the Presdent.
It s, therefore, apparent that CSCI was not dened adequate remedes from
the aeged procedura nrmtes surroundng the Regona Drector's order.
The entre record of the case was revewed and duy consdered on appea,
whch appeate proceedng remeded any nadequacy n the procedura due
process wth whch the tra proceedngs are beng fauted.
2. NO
We agree wth the Regona Drector that COMPLAINANTS coud not be
consdered probatonary empoyees because they were aready we-traned
n ther respectve functons.
Whe COMPLAINANTS were st wth the CCAS they were aready cerks wth
10 years of servce, on the average.
They were, therefore, experenced workers.
Fndngs of quas-|udca agences (ke the Labor Regona Omce) whch have
acqured expertse because ther |ursdcton s conned to specc matters
are generay accorded not ony respect but, at tmes, even naty where
such ndngs are supported by substanta evdence.
=. NO
Page =. of ./
Despte Art. 283s provson on termnaton of empoyment due to
redundancy and retrenchment, records fa to estabsh ceary that the
postons occuped by COMPLAINANTS are dentca wth those presenty
exstng n CSCI's omce.
CSCI aso kept COMPLAINANTS n ts empoy for amost 6 months wthout
rasng ths ssue. CSCI does not menton whch postons are aegedy
dupcated by the postons hed by COMPLAINANTS.
CSCI does not even expan why COMPLAINANTS shoud be the ones to be
termnated, wthout regard to the comparatve engths of servce,
quacatons and performance of a empoyees concerned.
CSCIs cam of nanca osses s untenabe snce t appears that t absorbed
and empoyed for amost 6 months, wthout any ntmaton of supposed
nanca dstress, the ma|orty of the former empoyees of CCAS. It never
advsed COMPLAINANTS of a company retrenchment program; the rst tme
ths supposed program was mentoned was when CSCI was tryng to |ustfy
the dsmssa of COMPLAINANTS before the abor arbter.
CSCI presented a Statement of Operatons, whch, however, remans an
uncorroborated and sef-servng pece of evdence.
A 8RIME SECURITC SER9ICE INC 9. NLRC AND OTHELLO MORENO =66 SCRA
68= :6000<
FACTS:
Prvate respondent Otheo Moreno worked as a securty guard for a year wth
Sugarand Securty Servces Inc, a sster company of pettoner. He was rehred as a
securty guard on |anuary 30, 1988 by the pettoner and assgned to the same post
at the U.S. Embassy Budng; that he was among those absorbed by the pettoner
when t took over the securty contracts of ts sster company wth the U.S. Embassy
1. Prvate respondent Otheo Moreno ed a compant aganst pettoner A
Prme Securty for ega dsmssa, ega deducton and underpayment of
wages.
2. Moreno aeged that he was forced by pettoner to sgn new probatonary
contracts of empoyment for 6 months and further aeged that on August 1,
1988, hs empoyment was termnated.
3. Moreno aso camed that durng hs empoyment, the amount of P20.00 per
month was deducted from hs saary aegedy for wthhodng tax, and the
saary he was recevng was ony P2,187.00 a month, whch was way beow
the P2,410.17 stpuated n the PADPAO memorandum of agreement.
4. On the other hand, pettoner, A Prme Securty, aeged that the prvate
respondent was hred on |anuary 30, 1988, on a probatonary bass, and he
Page =B of ./
sgned an authorty to deduct from hs saary any rembursement for any oss
or damage caused to propertes of the cent;
a. that he was gven a copy of pettoners rues and reguatons whch
provde that seepng on post s punshabe by warnng, suspenson and
dsmssa and he was caught seepng on post on March 17, 1988, for
whch he was sent a memorandum gvng hm a ast warnng;
b. that on March 25, 1988, he gured n a quarre wth another securty
guard, whch resuted n a near shootout;
c. that at the end of hs probatonary empoyment, he was gven a
psychoogca test and on the bass of the foregong, pettoner tod hm
that hs probatonary empoyment had come to an end as he dd not pass
the company standard and therefore, he coud not be hred as a reguar
empoyee.
5. LA handed down a decson n favor of companant. The respondent was
ordered to renstate the companant to hs former poston and accord to hm
the status of a reguar empoyee, and to refund to the companant the
deducton t had made from hs saary n the amount of P20.00 per month.
6. NLRC amrmed the decson wth a sght modcaton: the refund of the
deductons made by respondent from companants saares n the amount of
P20.00 per month was vacated and set asde.
ISSUES:
1. GON &ri4ate re"&o',e't(" e$&lo!$e't -it* A( 8ri$e Se)urit!
Ser4i)e"1 I'). -a" 3u"t a )o'ti'uatio' of *i" e$&lo!$e't -it*
Su#arla', Se)urit! Ser4i)e"1 I').
2. GON &ri4ate re"&o',e't i" a re#ular e$&lo!ee of &etitio'er.
3. GON &ri4ate re"&o',e't(" ,i"$i""al i" ille#al.
HELD:
1. YES.
On the ssue as to whether the prvate respondent s a probatonary or
reguar empoyee, the Court hods that the atter became a reguar empoyee
upon competon of hs sx-month perod of probaton. Prvate respondent
started workng on |anuary 30, 1988 and competed the sad perod of
probaton on |uy 27, 1988.
Thus, at the tme prvate respondent was dsmssed on August 1, 1988, he
was aready a reguar empoyee wth a securty of tenure.
He coud ony be dsmssed for a |ust and authorzed cause.
There s no bass for sub|ectng prvate respondent to a new probatonary or
temporary empoyment on |anuary 30, 1988, consderng that he was aready
Page =@ of ./
a reguar empoyee when he was absorbed by A' Prme from Sugarand, ts
sster company.
The Court cannot sancton the practce of some companes whch, shorty
after a worker has become a reguar empoyee, ehects the transfer of the
same empoyee to another entty whose owners are the same, or dentca, n
order to deprve sub|ect empoyee of the benets and protecton he s
entted to under the aw.
The aegatons of the prvate respondent that Sugarand s a sster company
of A Prme and that the atter absorbed the securty contracts and securty
guards of Sugarand wth the U.S. Embassy were nether dened nor
controverted by the pettoner before the Labor Arbter.
Pettoners faure to deny that Sugarand s ts sster company and that
pettoner absorbed Sugarands securty contract and securty personne
assumes overrdng sgncance over the resgnaton theorzed upon, evncng
pettoners desgn to gnore or voate abor aws through the use of the ve
of corporate personaty.
2. YES.
The companant became a reguar empoyee upon competon of hs sx-
month perod of probaton. Prvate respondent started workng on |anuary 30,
1988 and competed the sad perod of probaton on |uy 27, 1988.
Thus, at the tme prvate respondent was dsmssed on August 1, 1988, he
was aready a reguar empoyee wth a securty of tenure.
He coud ony be dsmssed for a |ust and authorzed cause.
There s no bass for sub|ectng prvate respondent to a new probatonary or
temporary empoyment on |anuary 30, 1988, consderng that he was aready
a reguar empoyee when he was absorbed by A Prme from Sugarand, ts
sster company.
3. YES.
The dsmssa of companant, a reguar empoyee, was wthout any |ust, ega
and vad bass.
What s more, he was not gven a chance to contest hs dsmssa.
He was deprved of an opportunty to be heard.
The dsmssa of prvate respondent was presumaby based on the resuts of
hs behavora and neuropsychoogca tests and on hs voaton of a company
rue on seepng on post.
Wth respect to the behavora and neuropsychoogca tests, the Court agrees
wth NLRCs assessment: "Companants resut of hs behavora research and
neuropsychoogca test to our mnd, s of no moment, consderng that the
sad test appeared to have been convenenty contrved to be conducted, and
the resut produced on the very day of hs dsmssa, n queston.
Page =/ of ./
So aso, prvate respondents aeged voatons of seepng on post, and
quarreng wth a co-worker, may not be proper grounds for dsmssa, as the
same were rst nfractons.
(Termnaton and Saary)
FACTS:
mora damages.
empoyment.
HELD: NO.
faure to quafy as a reguar member of pettoners teachng stah n
accordance wth ts reasonabe standards.
teacher-student reatonshp and teachng technques.
Page =8 of ./
Labor Code.
The abor arbters decson s erroneous.
The award of saary for the unexpred porton of the probatonary
empoyment on the ground that a probatonary empoyment for 6 months s
an empoyment for a "dente perod" whch requres the empoyer to
exhaust the entre probatonary perod to gve the empoyee the opportunty
to meet the requred standards.
We nd unmertorous pubc respondents argument that the security o+
tenure o+ probationary employees within the period o+ their probation
,ustifed the award o+ salary +or the unexpired portion o+ her probationary
employment.
The ter$i'atio' of &ri4ate re"&o',e't &re,i)ate, o' a 3u"t )au"e
'e#ate" the appcaton n ths case of the pronouncement n the case of
%iboso vs" -ictorias !illing Co", 'nc", on the rght of securty of tenure of
probatonary empoyees.
Upon nqury by the then Mnstry of Labor and Empoyment as a
consequence of the ega dsmssa case ed by prvate respondent before
t, t was found that there was no ega dsmssa nvoved n the case,
*e')e1 t*e )ir)u$4e'tio' of t*e ri#*t" of t*e &ro%atio'ar!
e$&lo!ee" "ou#*t to %e re#ulate, as ponted out n %iboso vs" -ictorias
!illing Co", 'nc", i" -a'ti'#.
crcumventon of the rghts of prvate respondent when she was nformed of
her termnaton.
Her ,i"$i""al ,oe" 'ot a&&ear to u" a" ar%itrar!1 fa')iful or
-*i$"i)al.
Prvate respondent was duy noted, oray and n wrtng, that her servces
as cutura orentaton teacher were termnated for faure to meet the
prescrbed standards of pettoner as reected n the performance evauaton
conducted by her supervsors durng the teacher evauatng program.
s a egtmate exercse of ts prerogatve to seect whom to hre or refuse
empoyment for the success of ts program or undertakng.
It -a" t*u" a #ra4e a%u"e of ,i")retio' o' t*e &art of &u%li)
re"&o',e't to or,er &etitio'er to &a! &ri4ate re"&o',e't *er "alar!
for t*e u'e5&ire, t*reeF$o't* &ortio' of *er "i5F$o't* &ro%atio'ar!
e$&lo!$e't -*e' "*e -a" 4ali,l! ter$i'ate, ,uri'# *er
&ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!$e't.
Page =; of ./
To sancton such acton woud not ony be un|ust, but oppressve on the part
of the empoyer as emphaszed n Pampanga Bus Co., Inc., vs. Pambusco
Empoyer Unon, Inc.
Orie't E5&re"" 8la)e$e't 8*ili&&i'e" 4" NLRC
Fa)t":
Antono Fores was hred as crane operator wth a monthy saary of US$500
for 1year sub|ect to a 3month probatonary perod. After 1month and 5days,
he was repatrated to the Phppnes.
He ed a compant to POEA fro havng been termnated for no vad reason.
Hs empoyers Orent Express and Nadrco (the foregn prncpa) camed that
he was termnated for poor |ob performance as shown n hs performance
evauaton sheet.
POEA decded n favor of Fores hed that when the ground nvoked for
dsmssa of an empoyee was ncompetence or poor |ob performance, t must
be shown that the reasonabe standards of work prescrbed by the empoyer
were made known to the empoyee.
The dsmssa was unwarranted because the empoyers faed to pont out the
reasonabe standards of work requred.
NLRC amrmed POEA decson on appea.
It aso rued that the desgnaton of Fores as oorman nstead of crane
operator for whch he was hred voated hs empoyment contract.
Orent Express and Nadrco ed for MFR but t was dened.
I""ue: Whether or not prvate respondent was vady dsmssed for poor |ob
performance and uncooperatve work atttude.
Hel,: No. Fores was not vady dsmssed.
Under Art. 281 of the Labor Code, the servces of an empoyee hred on a
probatonary bass may be termnated when he fas to quafy as a reguar
empoyee n accordance wth reasonabe standards made known by the
empoyer to the empoyee at the tme of hs engagement.
Pettoner faile, to "&e)if! t*e rea"o'a%le "ta',ar," %! -*i)* &ri4ate
re"&o',e'tJ" alle#e, &oor &erfor$a')e -a" e4aluate,1 $u)* le"" to
Page .0 of ./
&ro4e t*at "u)* "ta',ar," -ere $a,e 7'o-' to *i$ at t*e ti$e of
*i" re)ruit$e't i' Ma'ila.
Nether prvate respondent's Agency-Worker Agreement
9
wth ORIENT
EXPRESS nor hs Empoyment Contract wth NADRICO ever mentoned that he
must rst take and pass a Crane Operators' Lcense Examnaton n Saud
Araba before he woud be aowed to even touch a crane.
Nether dd he know that he woud be assgned as oorman pendng reease
of the resuts of the examnaton or n the event that he faed; more
mportanty, that he woud be sub|ected to a performance evauaton by hs
superor one (1) month after hs hrng to determne whether the company
was amenabe to contnung wth hs empoyment. Hence, respondent Fores
coud not be fauted for precsey harborng the mpresson that he was hred
as crane operator for a dente perod of one (1) year to commence upon hs
arrva at the work-ste and to termnate at the end of one (1) year. No other
condton was ad out except that he was to be on probaton for three (3)
months.
As aforesad, 'o "ta',ar, -*at"oe4er %! -*i)* "u)* &ro%atio'ar!
&erio, )oul, %e *ur,le, -a" "&e)i>e, a', $a,e 7'o-' to *i$.
Due process dctates that an empoyee be apprsed beforehand of the
condton of hs empoyment and of the terms of advancement theren.
Precsey, i$&li)it i' Art. 681 of t*e Co,e i" t*e reuire$e't t*at
rea"o'a%le "ta',ar," %e &re4iou"l! $a,e 7'o-' %! t*e e$&lo!er to
t*e &ro%atio'ar! e$&lo!ee at t*e ti$e of *i" e'#a#e$e' t, as correcty
suggested by the POEA.
Obvousy, such an essenta requrement was not met by pettoner, even
assumng that Fores' aeged unsatsfactory performance was true. Besdes,
u'"ati"fa)tor! &erfor$a')e i" 'ot o'e of t*e 3u"t )au"e" for
,i"$i""al u',er t*e La%or Co,e.
Dela CruH 4". NLRC
Fa)t":
On May 27, 1996, pettoner Forenco de a Cruz, |r. was hred by prvate
respondent Shemberg Marketng Corporaton as senor saes manager, a
newy created poston n ne wth the companys ob|ectve of product
postonng n the consumer market.
However, on Sept. 14, 1996, pettoner was nformed that hs servces were
termnated. Hs request for a meetng wth Shembergs VP and to be
furnshed a 30-day wrtten notce was dened by management.
Hence, pettoner ed a compant for ega dsmssa, non-payment of
saary, backwages, 13th month pay and damages.
Page .1 of ./
Prvate respondent answered that pettoners dsmssa was premsed,
among others, on hs unauthorzed rembursement of the pane tckets of hs
wfe and chd, resutng to oss of trust and condence of the company.
Labor arbter rued that pettoner was egay dsmssed and granted hs
cam for separaton pay, backwages and unpad wages. Upon appea, NLRC
moded the decson, deetng the award for separaton pay and backwages.
Hence, ths petton.
ISSUE: WON pettoner was egay dsmssed, as he was a probatonary empoyee.
HELD: CES.
Pettoner was hred by Shemberg on May 27, 1996 and was termnated on
Sept. 14, 1996. A281 LC provdes:
Probationary employment shall not exceed six ./0 months +rom
the date the employee started working , unless it is covered in
apprenticeship1 agreement stipulating a longer period" &he
services o+ an employee who has been engaged on a
probationary basis may be terminated +or a ,ust cause or when
he +ails to 2uali+y as a regular employee in accordance with
reasonable standards, made known by the employer to the
employee at the time o+ his engagement" An employee who is
allowed to work a+ter a probationary period shall be considered
a regular employee"
The evdence on record ceary shows that pettoner was we nformed of the
standards to be met before he coud quafy as a reguar empoyee.
Attached to hs appontment papers was a |ob descrpton of saes manager"
A probatonary empoyee s one who, for a gven perod of tme, s under
observaton or evauaton to determne whether or not he s quaed for
permanent empoyment.
Durng the probatonary perod, the empoyer s gven the opportunty to
observe the sk, competence and atttude of the empoyee whe the atter
seeks to prove to the empoyer that he has the quacatons to meet the
reasonabe standards for permanent empoyment.
the empoyer and the empoyee n deang wth each other durng ths perod.
Page .6 of ./
There s no dspute that pettoner, as a probatonary empoyee en|oyed ony
a temporary empoyment status.
Ths not havng been attaned n the mean tme.
The empoyer coud we decde he no onger needed the probatonary
empoyees servce or h performance fe short of expectaton.
As ong as the termnaton was made before the expraton of the 6-month
probatonary perod, the empoyer was we wthn hs rghts to sever the
empoyer- empoyee reatonshp.
A contrary nterpretaton woud defect the cear meanng of the term
probatonary.
I' t*i" )a"e1 Shemberg had good reason to termnate pettoners
empoyment. Pettoner was hodng a managera poston n whch he was
tasked to perform key functons n accordance wth an exactng work ethc.
Hs poston requred the fu trust and condence of hs empoyer.
Whe pettoner coud exercse some dscreton, ths obvousy dd not cover
acts for hs own persona benet.
He commtted a transgresson whch betrayed the trust and condence of hs
empoyer - rembursng hs famys persona trave expenses out of company
funds.
CHIANG KAI SHEK COLLEGE 9. CA AND DIANA EELO .=/ SCRA 1/1 :600.<
FACTS:
In 1992, Ms. Dana Beo, a teacher of Chang Ka Shek Coege snce 1977,
apped for a eave of absence for the schoo year 1992-1993.
Upon submttng her appcaton, she was nformed of the schoo pocy that f
she takes a eave of absence, she s not assured of a teachng oad upon her
return.
She was kewse nformed that ony teachers n actve servce may en|oy the
prvege and benets provded by the schoo, such as free tuton for the
teachers chdren.
Ms. Beo, nonetheess, took her eave of absence.
In May 1993, she attempted to return to CKSC and sgned her readness to
teach for the comng schoo year.
Page .= of ./
However, she was not aowed to return. Hence, she ed a compant for
ega dsmssa, among others, aganst CKSC.
The Labor Arbter dsmssed the compant but the NLRC dsagreed. The Court
of Appeas uphed the NLRCs rung.
Hence, ths petton.
ISSUE: WON prvate respondent Beo en|oys securty of tenure as a fu tme
teacher.
HELD: Yes.
It must be noted at the outset that Ms. Beo had been a fu-tme teacher n
pettoner CKSC contnuousy for fteen years or snce 1977 unt she took a
eave of absence for the schoo year 1992-1993.
U',er t*e Ma'ual of Re#ulatio'" for 8ri4ate S)*ool"1 for a &ri4ate
")*ool tea)*er to a)uire a &er$a'e't "tatu" of e$&lo!$e't a',1
t*erefore1 %e e'title, to a "e)urit! of te'ure1 t*e follo-i'#
reui"ite" $u"t )o')ur:

:a<t*e tea)*er i" a fullFti$e tea)*erA
:%<t*e tea)*er $u"t *a4e re',ere, t*ree )o'"e)uti4e !ear" of
"er4i)eA a',
:)<"u)* "er4i)e $u"t *a4e %ee' "ati"fa)tor!.
Snce Ms. Beo has measured up to these standards, she therefore en|oys
securty of tenure. The fundamenta guarantees of securty of tenure and due
process dctate that no worker sha be dsmssed except for |ust and
authorzed cause provded by aw and after due notce and hearng.
NLRC dd not commt any grave abuse of dscreton n ndng that Ms. Beo
was constructvey dsmssed when the pettoners, n mpementng ther
poces, ehectvey barred her from teachng for the schoo year 1993-1994.
The three poces are (1) the non-assurance of a teachng oad to a teacher
who took a eave of absence; (2) the hrng of non-permanent teachers n
Apr to whom teachng oads were aready assgned when Ms. Beo sgned
n May 1993 her ntenton to teach; and (3) the non-appcabty to chdren of
teachers on eave of the free tuton fee benets extended to chdren of
teachers n servce.
Case aw denes constructve dsmssa as a cessaton from work because
contnued empoyment s rendered mpossbe, unreasonabe, or unkey;
when there s a demoton n rank or a dmnuton n pay or both; or when a
cear dscrmnaton, nsensbty, or dsdan by an empoyer becomes
unbearabe to the empoyee.
Page .. of ./
When n the schoo year 1992-1993, the pettoners aready apped to Ms.
Beos chdren the pocy of extendng free tuton fee benets ony to
chdren of teachers n servce, Ms. Beo was ceary dscrmnated by them.
True, the pocy was made known to Ms. Beo n a etter dated 9 |une 1992,
but, ths ony addtonay and succncty renforced the cear case of
dscrmnaton.
LA CONSOLACION COLLEGE1 SR. ROSALINDA EACLA1 SR. CELIA EACONA1
REODITA MAEACAG1 OUDITH 9ERDADERO a', OOSE EACOGUING vs NLRC and
OOSE DE LA 8ENA1 III
FACTS:
LCC ntay empoyed |ose de a Pea III as a CAT Commandant and YCAP
Coordnator for schoo year 1975-1976.
Pror to hs resgnaton n 1980 and despte demands by LCC for hm to
submt a syab n YDT I, II, III, and CAT I contanng course ob|ectves, sub|ect
matter, content, concepts, sks, actvtes and evauaton not ater than
11/12/1979, respondent de a Pea faed to compy.
Later, de a Pea apped to LCC agan and for the postons of CAT
Commander and YDT Instructor, postons he hed for 11 years pror to hs
resgnaton from LCC.
However, he was apponted as a cassroom teacher n physca educaton and
heath, a poston he never hed durng hs prevous empoyment wth LCC.
The wrtten contract of empoyment between LCC and respondent de a Pea
expressy provded that the empoyment was for 1 academc year, that s,
from |une 1992 to March 1993. Respondent de a Pea accepted such
condton.
On 7/14/1992, pettoner |ose B. Bayogung, |r., a member of the academc
team tasked to evauate the performance of the schoos teachers, remnded
respondent de a Pea n wrtng to compy wth the requrements and
standard operatng procedure of the schoo, namey: tmey submsson of
esson pans, cass records and other papers, attendance at reguar monthy
meetngs, and nformng the schoo of absences.
However, de a Pea gnored the remnder wthout any vad reason, and
contnued to defy these requrements and procedures.
On 11/27/1992, de a Pea caed an emergency meetng of facuty members
and n sad meetng, respondent de a Pea berated pettoner Bayogung,
shouted nvectves, rdcued and threatened Bayogung wth body harm.
On 2/8/1993, respondent de a Pea pettoned for renstatement as a facuty
member for SY 1993-1994.
Page .B of ./
However, t was dened. Consequenty, the academc team composed of
nformed respondent de a Pea of hs unsatsfactory performance and
advsed hm that the schoo woud no onger hre hm for the ncomng schoo
year.
On 6/9/1993, respondent de a Pea ed a compant aganst LCC for ega
dsmssa, mora damages and exempary damages.
The Labor Arbter rendered a decson dsmssng the compant, hodng that
at the tme respondent de a Pea was dsmssed, he had not attaned reguar
status.
o The Labor Arbter aso found respondent de a Pea guty of serous
msconduct and gross dsobedence whch were |ust causes for
termnaton of servce.
On appea to the NLRC, the NLRC rendered a resouton reversng the decson
of the abor arbter.
o The NLRC hed that respondent de a Pea attaned reguar status at
the tme he was dsmssed and that LCC faed to prove the exstence
of |ust cause to warrant hs dsmssa.
LCC then ed a moton for reconsderaton of the NLRC decson, but the
NLRC dened the moton. Hence, ths petton.
ISSUE: Whether respondent |ose de a Pea was a reguar or permanent empoyee
of LCC.
HELD:
We reverse the NLRC decson havng been ssued n grave abuse of
dscreton.
Respondent |ose de a Pea dd not attan permanent status.
There s a wrtten contract denng the perod of empoyment of respondent
de a Pea.
Ceary, the empoyment was not permanent but for a speced duraton of
one schoo year.
In resovng the ssue of whether or not respondent de a Pea was
permanent empoyee of pettoner, t s the Manua of Reguatons for Prvate
Schoos, not the Labor Code, whch s appcabe.
Ths was setted n 3niversity o+ Sto" &omas v" #LC, where we rued that for
a &ri4ate ")*ool tea)*er to a)uire &er$a'e't "tatu" i' e$&lo!$e't
t*e follo-i'# reui"ite" $u"t )o')ur:
(1) the teacher s a fu-tme teacher;
(2) the teacher must have rendered 3 consecutve years of servce; and
Page .@ of ./
(3) such servce must have been satsfactory.
A schoo year begns n |une of one caendar year and ends n March of the
succeedng caendar year.
The wrtten contract of respondent de a Pea stated that he sha be
empoyed by the LCC for the schoo year |une 1992, up to March 1993, a
xed term of ten months.
It s aso mportant to note that respondent de a Pea was a new hre havng
prevousy resgned from the schoo and was hodng the poston of
cassroom teacher for BED for the rst tme.
Respondent never dened the fact that he faed to compy wth the
requrements of the schoo, hence, hs empoyment was not renewed.
Nether dd he attan permanent status.
Ceary, respondent was not egay dsmssed.
DIS8OSITION. Petton s GRANTED. The Court REVERSES and sets asde the
decson of the NLRC.
Page ./ of ./

Labor Standards Case Digests Compiled - 8.01

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Labor Standards Case Digests Compiled - 8.01

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

8.

For her servces, she receved food and transportaton aowance.

On November 8, 1991, four days before the expraton of the stpuated

S-ar putea să vă placă și