Case Digest (G.R. No. 161654)
Facts:
Dusit Hotel Nikko v. Renato M. Gatbonton, G.R. No. 161654, May 05, 2006, the Supreme Court Third Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Renato M. Gatbonton was hired by Dusit Hotel Nikko on November 21, 1998 as Chief Steward under a probationary employment contract stated to last three months (until late February 1999) with a monthly salary of P25,000; the standards for qualification as a regular employee were explained to him at the outset. The hotel later alleged that Director Ingo Rauber found Gatbonton unqualified at the end of the three-month period and recommended a two-month extension of probation, but by March 31, 1999 Gatbonton was served a notice terminating his probationary employment effective April 9, 1999.
Gatbonton filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of wages on April 12, 1999, seeking reinstatement, full backwages and damages including attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter (July 10, 2000) found that Gatbonton had become a regular employee because there was no proof of any evaluation during the three-month probation and ordered reinstatement with full backwages (P25,000 × 15 months = P375,000, subject to adjustment) and ten percent attorneys’ fees, and ordered payment of unpaid salaries.
The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and declared the dismissal legal, relying on Personnel Action Form entries indicating a probationary extension to April 22, 1999. Gatbonton filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals arguing the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter because the hotel failed to prove a valid extension, proper evaluation, or communication of any extension. The Court of Appeals granted Gatbonton’s petition and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The hotel then filed the present petition for review...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the respondent still a probationary employee at the time of his dismissal?
- If he was regular, was his dismissal valid for failure to meet reasonable standards made known at engagement?
- Is the respondent entitled to reinstatement, full backwages and attorney’s fees, and had his unpaid sala...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)