MARIWASA MANUFACTURING, INC v. HON. VICENTE LEOGARDO JR.

74246 January 26, 1989

GR

I.
Facts:
Dequilla was hired on probation by MARIWASA as a general utility worker.
Upon expiration of the probationary period of 6 months, he was informed by
his employer that his worked was unsatisfactory and has failed to meet the
required standards
He was given a chance to improve his performance and qualify for regular
employment by extending his probation for another 3 months with his
consent.
His performance still didnt improve and on that account he was terminated
at the end of his extended period.
II.
Case progression:
Dequila filed with the ministry of labor against Mariwasa and its VP, Dazo a
complaint of illegal dismissal and violation of PD 928 & 1389.
The complaint was dismissed because the director of ministry found the
dismissal justified and the money claims were rejected for insufficiency of
evidence.
On appeal, the decision was reversed. Deputy Minister held that, Dequilla was
lready a regular employee at the time of his dismissal thus his dismissal on
account of failure to meet company standards as a probationary worker was
unlawful
Mariwasa brought the case upon the SC for certiorari of the Deputy Ministers
ruling.
III.

Doctrines and application of Law

Art 282: Probationary Employment: Probationary employment shall not exceed 6

months from the dates the employee started working, unless it is covered by an
apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an employee
who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause
or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable
standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his
engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after probationary period hall be
considered a regular employee.
Generally, probationary employment cannot exceed 6 months unless otherwise
stipulated as the case above. However to add to this, another exception 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 nature of work to be
performed by the employee. In this case there is exercise of managerial prerogative
to extend the probationary employment which is lawful.
In the cited case of Buiser, the probationary employee who was contracted with on
an 18 month probationary period is not a regular employee because it is
management prerogative to set a longer probationary period than 6 months when
the skill or work to be learned requires more than 6 months. Thus it shouldnt not be
taken against the employer therefore such stipulations are legal and valid.

MARIWASA MANUFACTURING, INC v. HON. VICENTE LEOGARDO JR.

74246 January 26, 1989

GR

In the same way in this case, the extension of the probationary period of Dequila is
legal and valid because first, by voluntarily agreeing to the extension of the
probationary period, Dequila in effect waived any benefit of attaching to the
completion of said period if he still failed to meet standards during the extension.
The act of extension actually favors the employee because he is given more time to
demonstrate his fitness for regular employment. Lastly it was kindness in the part of
the employer to give the second chance to the employee to prove himself after
initially failing to do so in the first set period.