G.R. No. 122866 - Nath vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner Melva Nath was hired by Shangri-La Hotel Manila on June 1, 1992, as Director of Rooms under a probationary period of not more than six (6) months.
As a managerial employee, her role carried significant discretion and was subject to performance evaluation as a condition for regularization.

On September 4, 1992, during a regular weekly meeting, Resident Manager Gerard Sintes apprised Nath of her poor work performance and non-compliance with company rules.
Specific issues noted included failing to adhere to the hotel’s established protocols (e.g., the requirement on logging in and out and the designated area for taking snacks) and exhibiting an overall substandard output relative to expectations.
Examples cited by management involved:

Incomplete manuals for departmental systems and procedures.
Outstanding check-list items and tasks that required significant revisions even if initially completed.

On September 7, 1992, Nath telephoned the hotel reporting illness and indicated that she would not report for work that day.
Personnel Manager Teresa Lalin reminded her of the need to submit a medical certificate, and Nath verbally committed to returning on September 9, 1992.
Despite further reminders by Lalin and Sales Director Gami Holazo—who even visited her residence—Nath failed to report to work on the agreed date.

On September 10, 1992, Nath sent a letter expressing gratitude for the management’s efforts and indicated a willingness to return to work, contingent upon receiving a copy of her performance evaluation.
In her letter, she also submitted a summary of her accomplishments during her tenure, arguing that her output was substantial despite operational setbacks such as lacking a secretary and a computer for designated periods.

On September 14, 1992, the hotel issued a dismissal letter to Nath, citing her absence for a total of seven working days (with attendant discrepancies in the stated dates) and failure to report for work as justification.
The dismissal was premised on the fact that she was still under probation and had not complied with the required attendance and performance standards.

Following her dismissal, Nath filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin C. Reyes issued a decision in her favor, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering her reinstatement along with the payment of full backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
The decision of the Labor Arbiter was set aside by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Second Division, which dismissed her complaint for lack of merit while ordering payment of remaining salaries during her probation period and a nominal penalty for non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Nath contended that her dismissal lacked due process since the required first notice explaining the specific acts or omissions was not furnished.
She further argued that her alleged substandard work performance had not been properly raised or cited as a ground for termination during the evaluation process.
The petitioner alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in upholding the dismissal.

The case referenced the rules under Batas Pambansa Blg. 130, which require that any notice of dismissal must clearly state the specific acts or omissions constituting the grounds for termination.
Article 281 of the Labor Code was also significant in that it permits the dismissal of probationary employees for just cause, provided that the employer’s performance standards are reasonable and clearly communicated.
Substantial evidence, including the affidavit of Resident Manager Sintes and detailed records of Nath’s performance issues, was presented by the private respondents to justify the dismissal.

Whether the employer’s failure to provide the initial written notice—detailing the alleged acts or omissions—violated the due process rights of the petitioner as required under Batas Pambansa Blg. 130.
Whether the absence of a preliminary notice affected the legality of the dismissal.

Whether there was sufficient and clear evidence of substandard performance justifying the dismissal of a probationary employee.
The applicability of Article 281 of the Labor Code in authorizing the termination of a probationary employee based on a failure to meet reasonable performance standards.

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the labor arbiter’s decision despite evident performance deficiencies on the part of the petitioner.
The issue of whether the substantial evidence presented by the private respondents should have prevailed over the procedural lapses pointed out by the petitioner.