G.R. No. 37379 - People vs. Embalido

On July 6, 2011, Alphaland Corporation offered Redentor Y. Agustin the position of Executive Chef with a gross monthly salary of ₱122,500.00 and a six-month probation period.
Agustin accepted the offer by signing the letter, which also served as the employment contract.
Prior to this, Agustin was engaged as a consultant from June 6, 2011 to July 5, 2011, tasked with organizing the kitchen, preparing job descriptions, conceptualizing menus, and managing equipment acquisition at the Balesin Island Club.

Agustin prepared and managed the kitchen operations at the Club, including organizing personnel and culinary offerings.
On November 4, 2011, about four months into his employment, Agustin received a Notice of Termination.
The notice cited that he failed to meet the company’s standards required for regular employment status and stated immediate effectivity of his termination.
Alphaland asserted that Agustin’s performance was evaluated by company executives and business associates as unsatisfactory and not befitting a high-end luxury resort, asserting two performance standards: (a) rendering high quality of professional service and (b) pursuing company interests.

Agustin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging that the company did not inform him of the standards for regular employment at the time of engagement. The contract’s performance standards were general and did not specify measurable criteria.
Agustin claimed reinstatement, backwages, 13th month pay, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Alphaland defended the dismissal, arguing it complied with procedural due process applicable to probationary employees (only a termination notice required, no two-notice rule) and contended Agustin failed to meet reasonable performance standards.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Agustin, finding the performance standards too general and the dismissal illegal. The LA awarded backwages for the unexpired probationary period, proportionate 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees, but denied damages.
Alphaland submitted affidavits during appeal from company officers attesting to guests’ negative feedback on Agustin’s food, but the NLRC found these affidavits were late evidence and insufficient to prove just cause.
The NLRC affirmed the LA's findings, emphasizing Alphaland’s failure to notify Agustin of standards and that the dismissal violated procedural due process under the two-notice rule.
The Court of Appeals (CA) denied Alphaland’s petition for certiorari, affirming that the performance standards were too vague, the affidavits were belatedly submitted and disregarded, and the dismissal was illegal. However, the CA did not grant reinstatement or additional backwages due to Agustin’s failure to appeal earlier decisions.

Agustin sought reinstatement and backwages from the date of dismissal until reinstatement, invoking the precedent set in *St. Michael’s Institute v. Santos* regarding awards beyond the scope of appealed issues.
Alphaland argued that Agustin had acquiesced to earlier decisions and had not formally appealed for reinstatement or additional backwages.
The Supreme Court required further memoranda from parties for resolution.

Whether or not Agustin was a probationary employee whose dismissal complied with the standards and due process required under Philippine labor law.
Whether the dismissal of Agustin was illegal due to lack of reasonable standards made known at engagement and violation of procedural due process.
Whether Agustin is entitled to reinstatement and backwages from the date of illegal dismissal until reinstatement, despite not having formally appealed the relevant orders of the lower labor tribunals.
Whether the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is appropriate under the circumstances.