Cals Poultry Supply Corp. vs. Yap, G.R. No. 150660, July 30, 2002 [Case Digest]

 

●     Cals Poultry Supply Corp. vs. Yap, G.R. No. 150660, July 30, 2002

Facts:

                CALS Poultry Supply Corporation is engaged in the business of selling dressed chicken and other related products and managed by Danilo Yap. CALS hired Alfredo Roco as its driver. On the same date, CALS hired Edna Roco, Alfredo's sister, as a helper in the dressing room of CALS.  CALS hired Candelaria Roco, another sister, as helper, also at its chicken dressing plant on a probationary basis on May 16, 1995.

On March 5, 1996, Alfredo Roco and Candelaria Roco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against CALS and Danilo Yap alleging that Alfredo and Candelaria were illegally dismissed on January 20, 1996 and November 5, 1996, respectively. Edna Roco, likewise, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging that on June 26, 1996, she was reassigned to the task of washing dirty sacks and for this reason, in addition to her being transferred from night shift to day time duties, which she considered as management act of harassment, she did not report for work.  According to Alfredo Roco, he was dismissed on January 20, 1996 when he refused to accept P30,000.00 being offered to him by CALS' lawyer, Atty. Myra Cristela A. Yngcong, in exchange for his executing a letter of voluntary resignation. On the part of Candelaria Roco, she averred that she was terminated without cause from her job as helper after serving more than six (6) months as probationary employee.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints for illegal dismissal for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter found that Alfredo Roco applied for and was granted a leave of absence for the period from January 4 to 18, 1996. He did not report back for work after the expiration of his leave of absence, prompting CALS, through its Chief Maintenance Officer to send him a letter on March 12, 1996 inquiring if he still had intentions of resuming his work. Alfredo Roco did not respond to the letter despite receipt thereof, thus, Alfredo was not dismissed; it was he who unilaterally severed his relation with his employer. In the case of Candelaria Roco, the Labor Arbiter upheld CALS' decision not to continue with her probationary employment having been found her unsuited for the work for which her services were engaged.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the judgment of the Labor Arbiter. CA set aside the NLRC's decision and ordered reinstatement of Alfredo and Candelaria Roco to their former positions without loss of seniority of rights and benefits, with full payment of backwages. However, in the case of Edna Roco, the Court of Appeals found that her appeal cannot be favorably considered as she actually abandoned her work without justification.

In ruling in favor of Candelaria Roco, the appellate court held that when her employment was terminated on November 15, 1995 (she was hired on May 16, 1995), it was four (4) days after she ceased to be a probationary employee and became a regular employee within the ambit of Article 281 of the Labor Code, which provides:

ART. 281 [now Art. 296]. Probationary employment. - Probationary employment shall not exceed six months from the date 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 a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. 

CALS argues that the Court of Appeals' computation of the 6-month probationary period is erroneous as the termination of Candelaria's services on November 15, 1995 was exactly on the last day of the 6-month period.

 

Issue:

                Whether or not Candelaria is a regular employee within the ambit of Article 281 [now Art. 296] of the Labor Code.

 

Held:

                No.

 

Ratio:

                In Cebu Royal v. Deputy Minister of Labor, 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.