G.R. No. 186169 - Carvajal vs. Luzon Development Bank

Petitioner Mylene Carvajal was hired by respondent Luzon Development Bank as a trainee-teller on 28 October 2003.
Her employment was expressly on a six-month probationary basis with a monthly salary of P5,175.00.
The appointment letter clearly stated her status as a probationary employee, the standards of performance and conduct expected, and the possibility of immediate termination for below-satisfactory performance or disregard of company rules.

On 10 December 2003, the Bank issued a memorandum directing petitioner to explain her chronic tardiness on specific dates in November 2003.
Petitioner responded in writing with an apology and explanation regarding adjustments in her work and household routine.
A second memorandum was issued on 6 January 2004 due to further occurrences of tardiness, summing up to 13 incidences on specified dates in December 2003.
Petitioner submitted her explanation on 7 January 2004, effectively acknowledging her lapses.
On 12 January 2004, a memorandum informed her of a three-day suspension without pay, effective 21 January 2004.
On 22 January 2004, another memorandum lifted her suspension but simultaneously terminated her employment effective 23 January 2004.

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter.
In her position paper, she contended that her dismissal was based on multiple issues: being an ineffective frontliner, an erroneous clearance of a check, excessive tardiness, absenteeism, and a shortage.
Respondents, in their position paper, maintained that her termination was due to:

Chronic tardiness.
Unauthorized absences (noting a two-day absence without leave).
Unsatisfactory performance, as evidenced by a performance rating of 2.17 on a scale where 4 is the highest and 1 the lowest.

The decision included ordering the respondents to reinstate her without loss of seniority or, alternatively, to pay backwages with an additional attorney’s fee.
The ruling noted that petitioner was not afforded the required procedural notice in writing.

On partial appeal by petitioner, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on 31 May 2006 modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision:

It set aside the monetary liabilities decreed in the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
It found that petitioner was rightfully dismissed for failure to meet employment standards, thus denying her backwages.

Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erroneously reopened issues already determined by the Labor Arbiter.
She maintained that her employment status should have been considered regular based on her appeal of the NLRC’s computation of backwages.
Petitioner asserted that the dismissal was illegal because the dismissal process did not follow due process, particularly the requirement for a notice-and-hearing when significant employment issues were at stake.
The petition, however, was grounded on conflicting findings of fact between the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, and on alleged errors in considering issues not raised before the NLRC.

Whether petitioner’s termination as a probationary employee was valid considering the strict employment standards communicated at the time of engagement.
Whether the dismissal, primarily due to chronic tardiness and unsatisfactory performance, was in accordance with the due process guidelines applicable to probationary employment.

Whether the procedure followed by the Bank—issuing memoranda and informing petitioner of her performance and tardiness—met the requirement of due process for terminating a probationary employee.
Whether the absence of a formal notice-and-hearing for failing to qualify under the communicated performance standards invalidated the dismissal.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in addressing issues (including employment status and backwages) that were previously determined or not raised before the NLRC.
Whether reopening the issues on the basis of conflicting findings of fact and management prerogative was proper under the exceptions to the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari.