Case Summary (G.R. No. 192571)
Key Individuals and Context
Petitioner Abbott Laboratories, Philippines is a pharmaceutical company represented by its officers: General Manager Edwin D. Feist; Recruitment Officer Teresita C. Bernardo; HR Directors Maria Olivia T. Yabut-Misa and Cecille A. Terrible; Hospira Country Transition Manager Allan G. Almazar; and supervisor Kelly Walsh. Respondent Pearlie Ann F. Alcaraz applied for and accepted a probationary appointment as Regulatory Affairs Manager under the Hospira Affiliate Local Surveillance Unit (ALSU) sub-department.
Procedural History
Alcaraz filed for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter (LA), which was denied on March 30, 2006. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed on September 15, 2006, finding illegal dismissal and awarding reinstatement, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC on December 10, 2009, denying Abbott’s Rule 65 petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court, in G.R. No. 192571, granted Abbott’s Rule 45 petition and issued its decision on July 23, 2013.
Employment Engagement and Probationary Terms
On June 27, 2004 Abbott advertised for a Medical and Regulatory Affairs Manager. Alcaraz applied on October 4, 2004. On December 7, 2004 Abbott offered her the position on a probationary basis. She signed a six-month probationary contract effective February 15 to August 14, 2005, indicating compliance with company policies and acknowledging Abbott’s prerogative to terminate for justifiable reasons.
Probationary Performance Standards and Evaluation
Abbott’s Probationary Performance Standards and Evaluation (PPSE) procedure required two formal reviews: at the third and fifth months, with a Performance Improvement Plan if gaps were noted. A signed PPSE form was to be submitted to HR. Alcaraz received copies of Abbott’s organizational chart, job description, Code of Conduct, PPSE, and Performance Excellence Orientation Modules, and attended a pre-employment orientation and training.
Non-renewal and Termination of Employment
On May 16, 2005, supervisor Walsh and HR Director Terrible informed Alcaraz she had failed to meet regularization standards. They demanded her resignation and barred her from reporting for work; her office cards were surrendered. A termination letter dated May 19, 2005 cited ineffective time management, poor staff rapport, inadequate training, and deficient decision-making as grounds. She received copies on May 23 and May 27, 2005.
Claims for Illegal Dismissal and Damages
Alcaraz contended that Abbott violated Article 281 (now Article 295) of the Labor Code by failing to inform her of the reasonable standards for regularization at the time of engagement and that her dismissal was malicious. She sought reinstatement, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Abbott maintained her probationary non-confirmation was lawful and standards had been made known.
Labor Arbiter and NLRC Rulings
The LA held that Alcaraz admitted knowledge of her duties, received the company’s universal evaluation system, and validly failed to meet standards, warranting termination. The NLRC found no evidence of communicated standards specific to Alcaraz, noted Abbott’s non-compliance with its own PPSE procedure, and ruled the dismissal illegal, awarding reinstatement and damages.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA determined the NLRC had not gravely abused its discretion. It held the employment contract lacked prescribed standards, Abbott failed to prove valid grounds for termination, and Alcaraz was not apprised of performance measures at engagement. The CA denied Abbott’s petitions for certiorari and injunctive relief.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
(1) Alleged forum shopping and violation of the Rules of Court certification; (2) whether reasonable standards for regularization were made known; (3) validity of termination; and (4) liability of individual officers.
Security of Tenure and Probationary Employment Standards
Under the 1987 Constitution and the Labor Code, an employee enjoys security of tenure. Article 281 requires an employer to inform a probationary employee, at engagement, of reasonable standards for regularization; failure renders the employee regular. The Supreme Court held Abbott satisfied both requirements by disseminating Alcaraz’s duties, responsibilities, Code of Conduct, PPSE materials, and universal evaluation system, thereby making its expectations reasonably known.
Compliance with Notice and Evaluation Procedures
Termination of a probationary employee for failure to qualify requires
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 192571)
Facts of the Case
- On June 27, 2004, Abbott Laboratories, Philippines (Abbott) published a newspaper advertisement seeking a Medical and Regulatory Affairs Manager to oversee drug safety surveillance, staffing, budgeting, SOPs, and customer interface.
- Pearlie Ann F. Alcaraz, then Regulatory Affairs and Information Manager at Aventis, applied on October 4, 2004.
- Abbott offered her a probationary position under its Hospira Affiliate Local Surveillance Unit (ALSU) by letter dated December 7, 2004; she accepted the same day and received an email from HR officer Teresita C. Bernardo confirming her probationary status.
- On February 12, 2005, Alcaraz signed a six‐month probationary employment contract (February 15 to August 14, 2005) stipulating adherence to Abbott’s policies and subject to earlier termination for justifiable reasons.
- At pre‐employment orientation, Allan G. Almazar explained Alcaraz’s duties, reporting lines, application of Abbott’s Code of Conduct, HR and finance policies, coordination with Walsh, and dual identification cards for Abbott and Hospira.
- HR Director Maria Olivia T. Yabut-Misa emailed Alcaraz on March 3, 2005, Abbott’s single performance evaluation system and provided the Code of Conduct, Probationary Performance Standards and Evaluation (PPSE), and Performance Excellence Modules.
- Abbott’s PPSE required formal performance reviews in the third and fifth months, with a Performance Improvement Plan at the third‐month review, documentation by signed forms, and basis for confirmation or termination.
- During her probation, Alcaraz reprimanded staff for disciplinary lapses; Walsh considered her management style “too strict.”
- On May 16, 2005, Alcaraz was informed by Walsh and former HR Director Cecille Terrible that she failed to meet regularization standards. They demanded her resignation and barred her from reporting to work.
- On May 23 and 27, 2005, Alcaraz received a termination letter effective May 19, 2005, citing time management failures, lack of staff rapport and training, and insufficient technical judgment.
- Alcaraz filed for illegal dismissal and damages, alleging lack of communicated standards under Article 295 (now 281) of the Labor Code, wrongful collusion, humiliation, and bad faith by Abbott and its officers.
Procedural History
- The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Alcaraz’s complaint on March 30, 2006, finding she was briefed on duties, received the Code of Conduct and Performance Modules, and failed to meet standards; no bad faith was shown.
- On September 15, 2006, the NLRC reversed the LA and held that Abbott neither communicated the standards on which her regularization would depend nor complied with its own PPSE; ordered reinstatement, backw