12

Case Digest: Mylene Carvajal vs. Luzon Development Bank and/or Oscar Ramirez G.R. No. 186169

01 August 2012

FACTS: Carvajal was employed as a trainee-teller by Luzon Development Bank (Bank) under a six-month probationary employment contract. Ramirez is the President and CEO of the Bank. A month into her employment, she was send a Memorandum directing her to explain in writing why she should not be subjected to disciplinary action for her eight tardiness on November 2003. A second Memorandum was sent to her on January for her again chronic tardiness on December 2003. She submitted her written explanations for both events and manifested her acceptance of the consequences of her actions. She was terminated for three days effective 21 January 2004. However, on 22 January, her termination was lifted but at the same time, her services were terminated. In the respondents’ position paper to the LA, they explained that the reasons for her absence are chronic tardiness, absenteeism and failure to perform satisfactorily as a probationary employee. LA Decision: The petitioner was illegally dismissed because she was not afforded the notice in writing informing her of what the Bank would like to bring out to her for the latter to answer in writing. NLRC Decision: NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. CA Decision: The CA found that the petitioner was not entitled to backwages because she was rightfully dismissed for failure to meet the employment standards. ISSUE: Whether the petitioner can be considered a regular employee at the time of her dismissal. HELD: No. Carvajal’s appointment letter reads that “Possible extension of this contract will depend on the job requirements of the Bank and your overall performance. Performance review will be conducted before possible renewal can take effect.” Therefore, petitioner knew, at the time of her engagement, that she must comply with the standards set forth by respondent and perform satisfactorily in order to attain regular status. Even the NLRC upheld the petitoner’s probationary status, stating that reinstatement is not synonymous to regularization. Although probationary employees also enjoy security of tenure, he may still be terminated because of just and authorized causes of termination and the additional

ground under Article 281 of the Labor Code, i.e. the probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance to the reasonable standards set by the employer. Punctuality is a reasonable standard imposed on every employee, whether in government or private sector. This, together with absenteeism, underperformance and mistake in clearing a check are infractions that cannot be tantamount to satisfactory standards. In addition to the abovementioned, it has been previously held in PDI vs. Magtibay, Jr., that the second requirement under Article 281 does not require notice and hearing. Due process of law for this second ground consists of making the reasonable standards expected of the employee during his probationary period known to him at the time of his engagement. By the very nature of probationary employment, the employee knows from the very start that he will be under close observation and continuous scrutiny by his supervisors. If termination is for cause, it may be done at anytime during the probation.