Title
Euro-Linea, Phils., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. L-75782
Decision Date
Dec 1, 1987
Jimmy Pastoral, a probationary employee, was dismissed for alleged poor performance. The Supreme Court ruled his termination unjust, affirming NLRC's decision, as Euro-Linea failed to provide substantial evidence of his failure to meet standards.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-75782)

Applicable Law

The legal framework governing this case primarily stems from the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Labor Code, specifically Articles pertaining to the security of tenure for employees.

Background Facts

Jimmy O. Pastoral was hired by Euro-Linea, Phils., Inc. on August 17, 1983, with a probationary period ending February 18, 1984. Prior to his employment with Euro-Linea, he had over one and a half years of experience with Fitscher Manufacturing Corporation in a similar role. On February 4, 1984, Pastoral received a memorandum stating that his probationary employment was terminated due to an alleged failure to meet the company's performance standards.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

Following his termination, Pastoral filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on February 6, 1984. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Pastoral on July 19, 1985, declaring his dismissal as illegal and ordering reinstatement along with six months of back wages.

NLRC's Resolution

Euro-Linea subsequently appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision to the NLRC, which dismissed the appeal on July 16, 1986. The petitioner argued that the Labor Arbiter misapplied the law by ruling against the dismissal of a temporary employee and claimed that the dismissal was based on valid performance issues.

Issues Raised

The primary issue before the court was whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in its ruling on the dismissal of Pastoral, a probationary employee. Euro-Linea claimed that they had the prerogative to terminate employees who did not meet performance standards.

Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court acknowledged that, despite the limited tenure of a probationary employee, the constitutional protection of security of tenure applies. A worker cannot be dismissed without just cause, even during probation. The court emphasized that the burden is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was justified, a necessity not met in this instance.

Findings on Dismissal Justification

The court found that Euro-Linea failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate its claims regarding Pastoral’s underperformance. The absence of specific instances demonstrating past performance failures led to the conclusion that the dismissal was unjustified. Moreover, Pastoral’s continued employment until two weeks before the end of his probation raised further doubts regarding the legitima

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.