G.R. No. 221356 - Umali vs. Hobbywing Solutions, Inc.

Maria Carmela P. Umali (petitioner) started working for Hobbywing Solutions, Inc. (respondent), an online casino gaming establishment, on June 19, 2012, as a Pitboss Supervisor.
Her primary duties included supervising online casino dealers and the operations of the entire gaming area or studio.
She did not sign any employment contract at the start of her employment but regularly received monthly salary payments.

Seven months after starting work, in January 2013, the petitioner was asked to sign two employment contracts:

She signed both contracts on January 19, 2013, despite them covering prior periods of employment.

On February 18, 2013, the petitioner was informed by the respondent that her employment had ended.
She was instructed to wait for advice on rehire or regularization and was required to sign an exit clearance to clear her from any accountabilities.
She was not allowed to continue working thereafter.

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging she was terminated without just cause and after having attained regular employee status by working beyond the probationary period.
The respondent admitted to hiring her on a probationary basis from June 19, 2012, to November 18, 2012, with her probation extended by agreement for three months until February 18, 2013.
Respondent claimed that after a commendable performance rating at the end of the extended probation, they offered to retain her services regularly, but the petitioner declined due to the non-retention of a best friend.
The petitioner then voluntarily processed her exit clearance and requested related documents, including a waiver of a non-competition agreement and a certificate of employment.

Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, ruling the petitioner failed to prove she was dismissed and that she voluntarily ceased employment.
The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, ruling she became a regular employee by operation of law after the probationary period elapsed and that she was illegally dismissed without just cause or due process.
The respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC’s ruling, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of the complaint.
The CA found no evidence of dismissal, that the petitioner refused an offer of regular employment, and that the exit clearance was voluntarily processed.
Petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court challenging the CA decision.

Whether the petitioner attained regular employee status by working beyond six months of probationary employment without a valid contract executed at the time.
Whether the termination or severance of petitioner’s employment amounted to illegal dismissal under Article 281 of the Labor Code.
Whether the purported extension of the probationary period was valid and properly executed to delay the acquisition of regular status.
Whether the petitioner voluntarily resigned or was illegally dismissed by the respondent.