Case Summary (G.R. No. 192571)
Finding of Grave Abuse by the NLRC
The Supreme Court affirmed that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in treating Alcaraz as a regular employee despite:
• clear newspaper advertisement and written job description;
• offer sheet and contract expressly imposing a six-month probation;
• pre-employment orientation on duties, responsibilities, reporting lines and company policies;
• provision of Code of Conduct and Performance Modules explaining the single evaluation system for all employees; and
• Alcaraz’s own acknowledgment of her background and training relevant to the position.
These circumstances collectively demonstrate that Alcaraz was properly informed of her performance standards and remained on probation.
Probationary Standards of Regularization
The law requires two elements for valid probationary employment:
1. Communication of reasonable standards for confirmation at the outset.
2. Termination, if applied, only upon failure to meet those standards within six months.
Adequate performance of duties and responsibilities constitutes an implied standard of regularization, especially for managerial roles where qualitative measures cannot be reduced to numeric quotas. Not all employers maintain sophisticated HR feedback systems, and absence of such tools does not vitiate an otherwise valid probationary framework.
Procedural Lapses and Nominal Damages
Abbott’s failure to follow its own Probationary Performance Standards Evaluation procedure did not undermine the existence of a valid cause for dismissal. Under Agabon v. NLRC and Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot, breach of internal rules only merits nominal damages when statutory due process and substantive cause for termination are satisfied.
Distinction from Aliling
In Aliling v. Feliciano, the probationary employee lacked any communicated standard (e.g., sales quota) at the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 192571)
Facts
- June 27, 2004: Abbott publishes vacancy for Regulatory Affairs Manager, including job description.
- October 4, 2004: Alcaraz submits her application.
- December 7, 2004: Abbott’s offer sheet states her employment is probationary.
- February 12, 2005: Alcaraz signs a six-month probationary employment contract (February 15 to August 14, 2005).
- On acceptance day: petitioner Bernardo emails Abbott’s organizational chart and Alcaraz’s job description.
- Early orientation: Alcaraz undergoes pre-employment orientation, learns reporting line, Code of Conduct, and office policies; attends training program.
- Maria Olivia Yabut-Misa provides Performance Modules and explains the single evaluation system for all employees.
- Alcaraz, with prior pharmaceutical background, admits extensive training relevant to the position.
Procedural History
- Labor Arbiter (LA): finds Alcaraz illegally dismissed as a regular employee.
- National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): reverses LA, holds dismissal lawful—Alcaraz was probationary, adequately apprised of duties and standards.
- Court of Appeals (CA): denies petition for certiorari under Rule 65, finds no grave abuse of discretion by NLRC.
- Supreme Court (en banc): grants petition, reverses CA decision under Rule 45, declares NLRC guilty of grave abuse of discretion.
- Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration (MFR) dated August 23, 2013: challenges Supreme Court’s July 23, 2013 Decision.
Issue on Motion for Reconsideration
- Whether the Supreme Court erred by re-weighing evidence under a Rule 45 petition limited to questions of law.
- Whether a job description alone may constitute the standard for regularization.
- Whether Abbott’s failure to observe its own evaluation procedure negates the finding of valid cause and l