G.R. No. 144939 - Voyeur Visage Studio, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

On November 15, 1991, petitioner Voyeur Visage Studio, Inc. hired respondent Anna Melissa del Mundo (Melissa) on a six-month probationary basis.
Melissa was designated as a Production and Planning Coordinator/Receptionist and was assigned to the petitioner’s studio in Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila.
On February 28, 1992, while on duty, Melissa received a delivery from Kodak Philippines, Inc. of Kodak papers meant for transfer to the petitioner’s laboratory.
After the transfer, petitioner discovered a shortage of two boxes of Kodak papers valued at ₱6,000.00 and questioned Melissa, who maintained that the delivery receipt and items tallied at the time of receipt.

Dissatisfied with Melissa’s explanation, petitioner held her responsible for the shortage by deducting ₱250.00 weekly from her salary until the ₱6,000.00 was recovered.
These deductions were misrepresented in the payroll as repayments of a so-called salary loan, despite no such loan existing.
After approximately nine months of employment, a termination memorandum dated August 11, 1992, was issued, effective August 30, 1992, stating that Melissa had not passed her probationary period.

Melissa, through counsel, immediately protested her dismissal, asserting that at the time of termination she had already attained regular employment status.
On September 10, 1992, she filed a complaint before the NLRC seeking relief for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, non-payment of benefits (including 13th month pay, separation pay, SSS, Medicare, PAG-IBIG, and tax remittances), illegal deductions, reinstatement, and backwages.
The Labor Arbiter, in a decision dated August 17, 1998, found Melissa to be a regular employee, declared her dismissal illegal, ordered her reinstatement, and computed backwages from September 1992 to June 30, 1996, while dismissing other claims for lack of merit.

Dissatisfied with the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, petitioner appealed to the NLRC, reiterating that Melissa remained a probationary employee and that her dismissal was justified by her negligence and inefficiency.
On October 21, 1999, the NLRC, through its Third Division, modified the decision by holding that Melissa was legally discharged, though recognizing her as a regular employee.
The NLRC subsequently denied Melissa’s motion for reconsideration in its December 28, 1999 resolution.
Melissa then sought judicial relief by filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which, in its July 26, 2000 decision, reversed and set aside the NLRC resolutions for failing to observe the required notice and just cause.
The Court of Appeals further denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its September 8, 2000 resolution.

Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Melissa was a regular employee, asserting that she was still on probation even after an alleged extension of the probationary period.
It argued that Melissa’s dismissal was legal, being predicated upon her inexcusable negligence, inefficiency, and failure to comply with job requirements, which were documented in several memoranda.
In support, petitioner relied on dicta from previous cases such as Bernardo vs. NLRC, though the Court found such citations inaccurate and imprecise.

Whether respondent Melissa is to be considered a regular employee or remains under a probationary status.
Whether the dismissal of Melissa was valid, having complied with both the substantive and procedural requirements under the Labor Code.
Whether the proper notice requirements, particularly the twin notice rule under Article 282 of the Labor Code, were observed prior to effectuating Melissa’s dismissal.
Whether the findings of the lower tribunals (Labor Arbiter and NLRC) should be afforded deference, given the absence of clear abuse of discretion or conflict in the evidentiary record.