Case Digest (G.R. No. 186169)
Facts:
Mylene Carvajal v. Luzon Development Bank and/or Oscar Z. Ramirez, G.R. No. 186169, August 01, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Mylene Carvajal was hired by respondent Luzon Development Bank as a trainee-teller on probation for six months effective 28 October 2003, with respondent Oscar Ramirez as Bank officer involved in the appointment. During the probationary period the Bank issued memoranda charging petitioner with chronic tardiness (multiple dates in November and December 2003), received explanations and reprimands, then a three-day suspension notice and, ultimately, a termination memorandum effective 23 January 2004.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter, alleging she was dismissed without just cause and raised claims for reinstatement, backwages and attorneys’ fees. Respondents defended that petitioner was a probationary employee whose services were terminated for chronic tardiness, unauthorized absences, poor performance (performance rating 2.17/4), and clearing a check that later bounced.
On 9 June 2005 the Labor Arbiter declared the dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement or, if reinstatement was infeasible, payment of backwages up to the end of the probationary contract plus 10% attorneys’ fees. The Labor Arbiter found lack of due process and held that unsatisfactory performance could not shorten the six-month probationary period. Petitioner partially appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) contesting only the computation of backwages; in its Comment respondents did contest the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. On 31 May 2006 the NLRC affirmed with modification, ordering reinstatement and payment of full backwages from dismissal to date of reinstatement.
Respondents’ motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied (20 July 2006). Respondents then sought relief from the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari, and on 20 August 2008 the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the NLRC resolution, dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal and set aside all monetary liabilities. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals was denied. Petitioner filed a petition for review on c...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in deciding the validity of petitioner’s dismissal despite the Labor Arbiter’s earlier finding that the dismissal was illegal and the Bank’s alleged failure to appeal that finding?
- Was petitioner validly dismissed from her probationary employment—i.e., did she fail to qualify for regularization under standards made known at engagement and was due process observed?
- Is petitioner entitled to backwages in light of the Court’...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)