Case Summary (G.R. No. 189538)
Factual Background and Issue Presented
Joaquin A. Dequila was employed by Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. as a probationary general utility worker starting January 10, 1979. Upon the expiration of his initial six-month probationary period, his performance was deemed unsatisfactory. With Dequila’s written consent, Mariwasa extended his probation for an additional three months to allow him the opportunity to improve. Dequila’s performance failed to meet standards during this extension, leading to his termination on October 9, 1979. Dequila filed a labor complaint for illegal dismissal and violations of relevant Presidential Decrees. The main legal question was whether a probationary period may validly be extended beyond six months by mutual agreement between employer and employee, notwithstanding the six-month limit stipulated in Article 282 of the Labor Code.
Procedural History
The Ministry of Labor initially dismissed Dequila’s complaint, ruling the termination justified due to unsatisfactory performance during probation. However, on appeal, Deputy Minister Vicente Leogardo Jr. reversed this decision, holding that Dequila had effectively become a regular employee upon completion of the six-month probation and that his dismissal thereafter was unlawful. The Deputy Minister ordered reinstatement with full back wages. This order was partially amended to limit back wages to December 20, 1982. Mariwasa and Dazo petitioned the Supreme Court by certiorari and prohibition to nullify the Deputy Minister's ruling.
Legal Analysis: Probationary Employment and Its Duration
Article 282 of the Labor Code provides that probationary employment shall not exceed six months unless covered by an apprenticeship agreement specifying a longer duration. The provision also permits termination during probation if the employee fails to meet reasonable standards disclosed at engagement and considers employees regular once probation ends. The petitioners, supported by the Solicitor General, argued that this six-month limit is mandatory and non-extendable by agreement, grounded in the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.
The Supreme Court considered its earlier ruling in Buiser v. Leogardo, Jr., which upheld the validity of an eighteen-month probationary period expressly stipulated in the original employment contract. The Court distinguished Buiser’s case from the present, where the extension was agreed later rather than set initially, but found the distinction immaterial. The Court emphasized the absence of any indication that the extension was a stratagem to evade the law. Instead, it viewed the extension as an act of liberality by the employer offering Dequila a bona fide chance to prove his suitability.
Waiver of Statutory Probationary Limit Through Agreement
The Court held that by voluntarily consenting to the extension, Dequila effectively waived the protection ordinarily afforded by the completion of the six-month probationary period. The Court found no legal prohibition against an employee’s valid waiver of such benefit through voluntary agreement, especially where it arguably enhances his opportunity to qualify as a regular employee. The Court concluded that such an extension by mutual consent aligns with employer managerial prerogative and the fair administration of labor standards, and does not contravene public policy aimed at protecting employees.
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 189538)
Facts of the Case
- Joaquin A. Dequila was hired by Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. as a probationary general utility worker beginning January 10, 1979.
- The initial probationary period lasted six months, ending on July 10, 1979.
- Upon completion of the six months, Dequila's performance was deemed unsatisfactory by Mariwasa and he was informed he failed to meet the required standards.
- Instead of immediate dismissal, Mariwasa, with Dequila’s written consent, extended his probation by an additional three months from July 10 to October 9, 1979.
- At the end of the extended probation, Dequila’s performance had not improved and Mariwasa terminated his employment.
- Dequila filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and violation of Presidential Decrees Nos. 928 and 1389 with the Ministry of Labor against Mariwasa and its Vice-President for Administration, Angel T. Dazo.
Lower Proceedings and Decisions
- The Ministry of Labor, through Director Francisco L. Estrella, dismissed Dequila’s complaint after a hearing, ruling that termination was justified given the unsatisfactory performance and lack of sufficient evidence for monetary claims.
- Upon appeal, Deputy Minister Vicente Leogardo reversed the dismissal ruling, holding that Dequila was already a regular employee at the time of termination and could not be dismissed merely for failure to meet probationary standards.
- Leogardo ordered Dequila’s reinstatement without loss of seniority and awarded full back wages from dismissal date until actual reinstatement.
- The back wages order was later amended to be paid only up to December 20, 1982.
- Mariwasa and Dazo then took the case to the Supreme Court, seeking review on certiorari and prohibition to overturn Leogardo’s decision for alleged grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Issue Presented
- Whether, under Article 282 of the Labor Code, the probationary employment period may be validly extended beyond six months by mutual agreement between employer