August 1, 2012
Ponente: Perez, J.
FACTS:
·
Mylene Carvajal was employed as a
trainee-teller by Luzon Development Bank (LDB) in October 2003 under a
six-month probationary employment contract. At the time, Oscar Ramirez was
LDB's President and Chief Executive Officer.
·
In December 2003, LDB sent Carvajal a
Memorandum directing her to explain in writing why she should not be subjected
to disciplinary action for "chronic tardiness" on November 3, 5, 6,
14, 18, 20, 21 and 28 2003 or for a total of eight (8) times. She apologized in
writing and explained that she was in the process of making adjustments
regarding her work and house chores. She was thus reprimanded in writing and
reminded of her status as a probationary employee.
·
In January 2004, a second Memorandum was sent
to Carvajal directing her to explain why she should not be suspended for
"chronic tardiness" on 13 occasions or on December 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10,
11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 22, and 23, 2003. In January 2004, Carvajal submitted her written
explanation and manifested her acceptance of the consequences of her actions.
·
On January 12, 2004, Carvajal was informed,
through a Memorandum, of her suspension for three (3) working days without pay
effective January 21, 2004. Finally, in a Memorandum dated January 22, 2004,
Carvajal's suspension was lifted but in the same breath, her employment was
terminated effective January 23, 2004. This prompted Carvajal to file an action
before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal against LDB.
·
LDB explained that Carvajal was dismissed on
three grounds: 1) chronic tardiness; 2) unauthorized absence; and 3) failure to
perform satisfactorily as a probationary employee. LDB explained that Carvajal
was a chronic violator of the bank’s rules and regulations on tardiness and
absenteeism. Aside from her numerous tardiness, she was absent without leave
for 2 days. She also cleared a check which later turned out to be a bounced
check. Finally, Carvajal garnered only a rating of 2.17, with 4 being the
highest and 1 the lowest, in her performance evaluation.
·
Labor Arbiter: Ruled that Carvajal was
illegally dismissed. The LA held LDB and its CEO, Ramirez, solidarily liable
for payment of Carvajal's money claims amounting to P20,070, representing full backwages of
complainant from the time of her illegal dismissal up to the end of her
probationary contract of employment with LDB, plus, 10% of the monetary award
as attorney’s fee. / The LA also found that Carvajal was dismissed without due
process because "she was not afforded the notice in writing informing her
of what respondent LDB would like to bring out to her for the latter to answer
in writing." The LA also did not consider "unsatisfactory
performance" as a valid ground to shorten the six-month contract of Carvajal
with the Bank.
·
NLRC: It was Carvajal, not LDB, who appealed
the LA's decision before the NLRC. Carvajal claimed that she should be
considered a regular employee on account of the fact that LDB did not inform
her of the standards she should adhere to in the function of her duties as an
employee on probation. Her basis was Book VI, Rule 1, Section 6(d) of the
Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, which states that, "Where no
standards are made known to the employee at that time, he shall be deemed a
regular employee."
·
The NLRC partially affirmed LA's ruling. But
it deleted money claims and instead ordered LDB to reinstate Carvajal to her
former position, without loss of any seniority
rights and other monetary benefits and to pay her full backwages from
the date of her dismissal to the date of her reinstatement, actual or in
payroll.
·
CA: Reversed NLRC ruling. CA held that
Carvajal was not entitled to backwages because she was rightfully dismissed for
failure to meet the employment standards. Hence, the instant petition.
RULING:
Whether
Carvajal was informed of her functions and the standards she should adhere to
as an employee on probationary status. – YES.
·
At the time of her engagement and as mandated
by law, Carvajal was informed in writing of the standards necessary to qualify
her as a regular employee. Carvajal knew, at the time of her engagement, that
she must comply with the standards set forth by LDB and perform satisfactorily
in order to attain regular status. She was apprised of her functions and duties
as a trainee-teller. LDB released to Carvajal its evaluation of her performance
where she was found wanting.
·
Punctuality is a reasonable standard imposed
on every employee, whether in government or private sector. As a matter of
fact, habitual tardiness is a serious offense that may very well constitute
gross or habitual neglect of duty, a just cause to dismiss a regular employee.
Assuming that Carvajal was not apprised of the standards concomitant to her
job, it is but common sense that she must abide by the work hours imposed by
LDB.
·
As stated in Aberdeen Court, Inc. v. Agustin, Jr., the rule on reasonable
standards made known to the employee prior to engagement should not be used to
exculpate a probationary employee who acts in a manner contrary to basic
knowledge and common sense, in regard to which there is no need to spell out a
policy or standard to be met.
·
Since LDB did not challenge NLRC's ruling that
Carvajal should be reinstated, then she should be entitled to be reinstated as
a probationary employee. But the determination of whether she can qualify to
become one of LDB’s regular employees is still within the well recognized
management’s prerogative..
Whether
Carvajal was illegally dismissed. – NO.
·
Carvajal was validly dismissed from probationary
employment before the expiration of her 6-month probationary employment
contract for her failure to adhere to the reasonable standards prescribed by
LDB.
·
A probationary employee, like a regular
employee, enjoys security of tenure. However, in cases of probationary
employment, aside from just or authorized causes of termination, an additional
ground is provided under Article 281 (now 287) of the Labor Code, i.e., the
probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a regular
employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to
the employee at the time of the engagement. Thus, the services of an employee
who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated for any of the
following: (1) a just or (2) an authorized cause and (3) when he fails to
qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards
prescribed by the employer.
·
In the instant case, the primary cause of
Carvajal's dismissal from her probationary employment was her "chronic
tardiness." At the very start of her employment, she already exhibited
poor working habits. Even during her first month on the job, she already
incurred eight (8) tardiness. In a Memorandum dated 11 December 2003, she was
warned that her tardiness might affect her opportunity to become a permanent or
regular employee. And Carvajal did not provide a satisfactory explanation for
the cause of her tardiness.
·
LDB also cited other infractions such as
unauthorized leaves of absence, mistake in clearing of a check, and
underperformance. All of these infractions were not refuted by Carvajal.
Whether
LDB failed to observe due process when it ordered the dismissal of Carvajal
from the company without notice and hearing. – NO.
·
In Carvajal's letter of appointment, LDB
reserved the right to "immediately terminate this contract in the event of
a below satisfactory performance, serious disregard of company rules and
policies and other reasons critical to its interests."
·
In Philippine
Daily Inquirer, Inc. v. Magtibay, Jr., the Court held that: "Unlike
under the first ground for the valid termination of probationary employment
which is for just cause, the second ground failure to qualify in accordance
with the standards prescribed by employer 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 probationary employment. By the very nature of a
probationary employment, the employee knows from the very start that he will be
under close observation and his performance of his assigned duties and
functions would be under continuous scrutiny by his superiors. It is in
apprising him of the standards against which his performance shall be
continuously assessed where due process regarding the second ground lies, and
not in notice and hearing as in the case of the first ground."
·
LDB complied with the basic requirements of
due process as defined in PDI v.
Magtibay, Jr. Carvajal had more than sufficient knowledge of the standards
her job entails. LDB had not been remiss in reminding her, through memoranda,
of the standards that should be observed in aspiring for regularization. She
was even notified in two (2) memoranda regarding the bank’s displeasure over
her chronic tardiness. Every memorandum directed her to explain in writing why
she should not be subjected to disciplinary action. Each time, she acknowledged
her fault and assured the bank that she would, in her daily schedules, make
adjustments to make amends. This certainly is compliance with due process.