Title
Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Leogardo, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 74246
Decision Date
Jan 26, 1989
A probationary employee's employment was terminated after a validly extended probationary period; the Supreme Court ruled the extension lawful, upholding the termination as justified.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 108001)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Employment Background
    • Private respondent Joaquin A. Dequila was hired on probation by petitioner Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. as a general utility worker starting January 10, 1979.
    • The probationary period was set for six months, as prescribed by Article 282 of the Labor Code.
  • Events During Probation
    • Upon expiration of six months, Dequila’s performance was deemed unsatisfactory and failing to meet company standards.
    • Mariwasa, with Dequila’s written consent, extended his probationary period for an additional three months (July 10 to October 9, 1979) to give him a chance to improve.
    • Dequila’s performance did not improve during the extension, leading Mariwasa to terminate his employment at the end of the extended period.
  • Administrative Proceedings
    • Dequila filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and violation of Presidential Decrees Nos. 928 and 1389 against Mariwasa and its Vice-President of Administration, Angel T. Dazo.
    • The Ministry of Labor’s Director Francisco L. Estrella dismissed the complaint for lack of merit after hearing.
    • On appeal, Deputy Minister Vicente Leogardo reversed the dismissal, ruling that Dequila was already a regular employee when terminated and ordered his reinstatement with full back wages.
    • The reinstatement order was later amended to limit back wages only until December 20, 1982.
  • Petition for Review
    • Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. and Angel T. Dazo petitioned the Supreme Court to review and set aside Deputy Minister Leogardo’s decision, arguing grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction.
    • The central issue raised was whether Article 282 of the Labor Code, which limits probationary employment to six months, can be validly extended by agreement between employer and employee.

Issues:

  • Whether the probationary period prescribed under Article 282 of the Labor Code can be validly extended beyond six months by agreement of the employer and employee.
  • Whether the extension of probationary employment granted to Dequila, with his consent, made him a regular employee upon expiration of the original six-month period.
  • Whether the termination of Dequila’s employment constituted illegal dismissal.
  • Ancillary issue (not reached by the Court): Whether the back wages awarded were properly computed.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.