Title
Jaso vs. Metrobank and Trust Co.
Case
G.R. No. 235794
Decision Date
May 12, 2021
Karen Jaso, a Metrobank probationary employee, was terminated for failing to meet performance standards and displaying unprofessional behavior. The Supreme Court upheld her dismissal, ruling she remained probationary at termination, was informed of standards, and due process was observed.
termination
probationary employee
reasonable standards
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 235794)

Factual Background

The record shows that KAREN G. JASO applied for the position of Compensation Officer but was hired by METROBANK & TRUST CO. as a Management Trainee on July 16, 2012. Metrobank presented evidence that it informed petitioner of the probationary character of her employment, furnished her with a Performance Appraisal Management System sheet, an Orientation Checklist, and Key Result Areas, and that petitioner signed these documents on July 25, 2012. Petitioner attended orientations in which criteria for regularization were discussed. Metrobank assessed petitioner’s performance through a Core Competency Assessment and a performance appraisal dated December 26, 2012, which yielded an overall rating of 2.21 described as “Below Meets Standard.” Metrobank further alleged that petitioner committed critical errors in an RF Regularization Evaluation Sheets document, behaved improperly during a December 17, 2012 meeting with a superior, and incurred absences from December 18, 2012 to January 14, 2013 without filing leave. Metrobank served a Show Cause Letter on January 2, 2013; petitioner replied January 9, 2013; Metrobank then issued a termination notice dated January 14, 2013 effective January 15, 2013.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dated May 2, 2013 in favor of KAREN G. JASO, ordering reinstatement under the same terms and conditions and payment of back wages in the amount of P80,136.00 plus ten percent attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter exonerated the individual respondents from liability. The Labor Arbiter reasoned that petitioner’s six-month probationary employment commenced on July 16, 2012 and therefore was valid until December 16, 2012; because the performance appraisal was belatedly made on December 26, 2012, petitioner had already become a regular employee and was deprived of notice that she had failed to comply with the employer’s standards.

Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission

On appeal, the NLRC issued a Decision dated January 30, 2014 vacating the Labor Arbiter’s Decision and finding that petitioner had been validly dismissed. The NLRC disagreed with the Labor Arbiter’s computation of the probationary period, citing Article 13 of the Civil Code to support the method of computing months and concluding that petitioner’s six-month probationary period ended on January 16, 2013. The NLRC further found that Metrobank had made known the standards for regularization as evidenced by the Orientation Checklist and other documentary and testimonial evidence, and that the employer complied with the requirements of due process in terminating petitioner’s probationary employment. The NLRC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated May 28, 2014.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated September 13, 2017, dismissed petitioner’s petition for certiorari and affirmed the NLRC Decision. The CA held that Metrobank substantially complied with the rule on notification of standards and that petitioner had sufficient knowledge of the standards against which her performance would be assessed. The CA found no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC in setting aside the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated November 23, 2017.

Issues Presented

The principal issues presented to the Supreme Court were whether petitioner was a regular employee or still on probation at the time of her dismissal; whether METROBANK & TRUST CO. made known reasonable standards for regularization to petitioner at the time of engagement; and whether Metrobank observed the required due process in terminating petitioner’s employment.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner contended that Metrobank failed to present proof of the alleged performance standards and did not apprise her of any performance criteria at the time of engagement, that her termination was unjust and was effected without due process, and that Metrobank produced no proof of the infractions it alleged. Metrobank maintained that it had informed petitioner of her probationary status and the standards she had to meet, produced signed documents and orientation records, produced a Core Competency Assessment and a performance appraisal showing a 2.21 rating, and presented evidence of petitioner’s errors, improper behavior, and unauthorized absences; Metrobank further asserted that it afforded petitioner procedural due process by serving a Show Cause Letter and a subsequent Notice of Termination.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The Court held that METROBANK & TRUST CO. made known the standards for regularization at the time of engagement and that Metrobank discharged the quantum of proof required of an employer seeking to justify termination of a probationary employee for failure to qualify as a regular employee. The Court concluded that petitioner failed to qualify as a regular employee under the employer’s reasonable standards, that she was still a probationary employee on January 15, 2013 when terminated, and that Metrobank observed procedural due process through a Show Cause Letter dated January 2, 2013 and a Notice of Termination dated January 14, 2013.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court anchored its ruling on Article 296 (formerly 281) of the Labor Code, which permits termination of a probationary employee for failure to qualify as a regular employee under reasonable standards made known at the time of engagement, and on Section 6(d) of Rule VIII-A of Department Order No. 10, s. 1997, which requires that standards for regularization be made known at engagement or the employee is deemed regular. The Court applied the standard articulated in Abbott Laboratories, Phils., et al. v. Alcaraz, that an employer is deemed to have made known the standards when it has exerted reasonable efforts to apprise the probationary employee of what is expected during the trial period. The Court found substantial evidence that petitioner received and signed the Orientation Checklist, received the Performance Appraisal Management System sheet, attended orientations, undertook assigned tasks such as Foreign Offices functions and a proposed pre-regularization project, and admitted to performance shortcomings in her January 9, 2013 letter. The Court also relied on Article 13 of the Civil Code and the jurisprudence in Alcira v. National Labor Re

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms