Alcira vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 149859, June 9, 2004 [Case Digest]

Alcira vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 149859,  June 9, 2004

 

Facts:

                Respondent Middleby Philippines Corporation (Middleby) hired petitioner as engineering support services supervisor on a probationary basis for six months. Apparently unhappy with petitioner’s performance, respondent Middleby terminated petitioner’s services. The bone of contention centered on whether the termination occurred before or after the six-month probationary period of employment.

The parties, presenting their respective copies of Alcira’s appointment paper, claimed conflicting starting dates of employment: May 20, 1996 according to petitioner and May 27, 1996 according to respondent. Both documents indicated petitioner’s employment status as "probationary (6 mos.)" and a remark that "after five months (petitioner’s) performance shall be evaluated and any adjustment in salary shall depend on (his) work performance."

Petitioner asserts that, on November 20, 1996, in the presence of his co-workers and subordinates, a senior officer of respondent Middleby in bad faith withheld his time card and did not allow him to work. Considering this as a dismissal "after the lapse of his probationary employment," petitioner filed on November 21, 1996 a complaint in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against respondent Middleby contending that he had already become a regular employee as of the date he was illegally dismissed.

In their defense, respondents claim that, during petitioner’s probationary employment, he showed poor performance in his assigned tasks, incurred ten absences, was late several times and violated company rules on the wearing of uniform. Since he failed to meet company standards, petitioner’s application to become a regular employee was disapproved and his employment was terminated.

 

On May 19, 1998, the labor arbiter dismissed the complaint on the ground that: (1) respondents were able to prove that petitioner was apprised of the standards for becoming a regular employee; (2) respondent Mamaradlo’s affidavit showed that petitioner "did not perform well in his assigned work and his attitude was below par compared to the company’s standard required of him" and (3) petitioner’s dismissal on November 20, 1996 was before his "regularization," considering that, counting from May 20, 1996, the six-month probationary period ended on November 20, 1996.

 

NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter. Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the NLRC.

Petitioner insists that he already attained the status of a regular employee when he was dismissed on November 20, 1996 because, having started work on May 20, 1996, the six-month probationary period ended on November 16, 1996. According to petitioner’s computation, since Article 13 of the Civil Code provides that one month is composed of thirty days, six months total one hundred eighty days. As the appointment provided that petitioner’s status was "probationary (6 mos.)" without any specific date of termination, the 180th day fell on November 16, 1996. Thus, when he was dismissed on November 20, 1996, he was already a regular employee.

 

Issue 1:

                Whether or not petitioner [Radin Alcira] was allowed to work beyond his probationary period.

 

Held:

                No.

 

Ratio:

                Petitioner’s contention is incorrect. In CALS Poultry Supply Corporation, et. al. vs. Roco, et. al., this Court dealt with the same issue of whether an employment contract from May 16, 1995 to November 15, 1995 was within or outside the six-month probationary period. We ruled that November 15, 1995 was still within the six-month probationary period. We reiterate our ruling in CALS Poultry Supply:

Our [SC] computation of the 6-month probationary period is reckoned from the date of appointment up to the same calendar date of the 6th month following.

In short, since the number of days in each particular month was irrelevant, petitioner was still a probationary employee when respondent Middleby opted not to "regularize" him on November 20, 1996.

 

Issue 2:

                Whether or not respondent Middleby informed petitioner of the standards for "regularization" at the start of his employment.

 

Held:

                SC hold that respondent Middleby substantially notified petitioner of the standards to qualify as a regular employee when it apprised him, at the start of his employment, that it would evaluate his supervisory skills after five months.

                Conversely, an employer is deemed to substantially comply with the rule on notification of standards if he apprises the employee that he will be subjected to a performance evaluation on a particular date after his hiring.