G.R. No. 226240 - Moral vs. Momentum Properties Management Corp.

On 26 June 2013, petitioner Myra M. Moral was hired by Momentum Properties Management Corporation (respondent) as a probationary employee, designated as Leasing Assistant, working eight hours daily from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Petitioner’s probationary employment term was six months, as indicated in her Employment Agreement executed on 28 June 2013.
She was assigned to the Solemare Parksuites project in Parañaque City, working under the supervision of Leasing Manager Elizabeth Tungol.

In November 2013, petitioner underwent performance evaluation and aptitude tests (Verbal, Non-Verbal, and Numerical Examinations) administered by the HR department.
Petitioner received below-average (BA) scores in these evaluations, including a raw score of 6 out of 30 in the Numerical Exam and 19 out of 50 in the Verbal Exam, with questionable language skills and poor memorandum drafting.
Her Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) showed several BA ratings in key result areas and behavioral factors, culminating in an overall score of 1.43 under the BA rating norm.
Based on these results, respondent considered petitioner unqualified for regularization.

Respondent directed Tungol to ask petitioner to report to the head office to discuss her poor evaluation results, but she failed to report.
Petitioner stopped reporting for work starting 27 December 2013 and was later issued a Notice of Absence without Official Leave (NAWOL) on 7 January 2014, requesting a written explanation and attendance at a meeting.
On 13 January 2014, petitioner filed a Request for Assistance before the NCR Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, alleging illegal dismissal.
Petitioner claimed she was dismissed without notice or just cause and that respondent failed to comply with procedural and substantive due process. Respondent denied illegal dismissal, asserting petitioner failed to qualify for regularization.

On 31 July 2014, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring her dismissal illegal due to non-compliance with procedural due process.
The Labor Arbiter disallowed the allegation of abandonment, holding that mere failure to report after notice is insufficient to prove abandonment.
Petitioner was awarded backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

On 30 September 2014, the NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision by deleting moral and exemplary damages for lack of clear and convincing evidence of malice, but retained backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees.
The NLRC found that petitioner was dismissed but without sufficient proof that the dismissal was capricious or malicious.
Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied on 18 November 2014.

On 22 March 2016, the Court of Appeals granted respondent’s petition, annulling and setting aside the NLRC’s decisions.
The Court held that petitioner was a probationary employee properly subject to dismissal due to failure to meet reasonable standards known at hiring, as shown by her poor performance evaluations and test scores.
However, it found procedural due process infirmity in the manner of termination, which was communicated via text messages rather than formal written notice.
Accordingly, petitioner was ordered to pay nominal damages of Php 30,000.00 to respondent.
The Court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on 19 July 2016.

Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals’ decision.

Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed by respondent despite her probationary employee status and poor performance evaluation.
Whether the procedural due process requirements for terminating a probationary employee were complied with by respondent.