Title
Moral vs. Momentum Properties Management Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 226240
Decision Date
Mar 6, 2019
Probationary employee dismissed via text for failing regularization standards; SC upheld validity but awarded nominal damages for procedural flaw.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 226240)

Factual Background of Employment and Termination

Petitioner was hired as a probationary Leasing Assistant under a written Employment Agreement dated 28 June 2013 specifying a six-month probationary period (26 June–26 December 2013) with scheduled appraisals at the third and fifth months and a notice of employment status before the sixth month. Petitioner performed clerical and secretarial duties at the Solemare Parksuites project under the supervision of Leasing Manager Tungol. In November 2013 petitioner submitted to verbal, non‑verbal, and numerical examinations administered by HR and, according to respondent, obtained below‑average (BA) results. Respondent also produced a Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) reflecting predominantly BA ratings and an overall BA grade under its assessment criteria. Petitioner allegedly ceased reporting for work as of 27 December 2013 after receiving text messages from Tungol indicating she should no longer report and instructing her to process clearance and backpay. On 7 January 2014 respondent issued a Notice of Absence without Official Leave (NAWOL) requesting explanation; petitioner filed a Request for Assistance with the NLRC on 13 January 2014.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner claimed illegal dismissal, alleging lack of notice and lack of just cause and asserting she was constructively dismissed for reasons unknown to her and not constituting authorized cause. Respondent maintained petitioner was a probationary employee who failed to meet the reasonable regularization standards communicated at engagement, pointing to test scores, PAR ratings, and HR procedures. Respondent denied unlawful dismissal and asserted its evaluation and decision to deny regularization were proper and within its hiring prerogative; it also contended some documentary evidence (e.g., text messages) lacked formal authentication under electronic evidence rules but acknowledged procedural flexibility before labor tribunals.

Labor Arbiter’s Decision and Rationale

The Labor Arbiter found petitioner illegally dismissed, rejecting respondent’s abandonment claim on the ground that mere absence after a notice is insufficient to establish abandonment. The Labor Arbiter awarded backwages (P124,280), separation pay (P16,000), moral damages (P20,000), exemplary damages (P20,000), and attorney’s fees (10% of the monetary award). The Arbiter declined to hold the CEO, Steve Li, solidarily liable for bad faith in the absence of evidence. The Arbiter emphasized procedural and substantive due process defects in the termination.

NLRC’s Disposition and Reasoning

The NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s award by removing moral and exemplary damages and reducing the total monetary award to P154,308. The NLRC agreed that respondent failed to satisfactorily rebut petitioner’s claim of dismissal and accepted petitioner’s evidence (including text messages) as establishing that she had been told not to report. However, the NLRC held petitioner did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the termination was arbitrary, capricious, malicious or tainted with evident personal ill‑will—requirements for moral and exemplary damages—and therefore deleted those awards.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling and Basis

The Court of Appeals granted respondent’s petition for certiorari and annulled and set aside the NLRC decision. The CA accepted that petitioner was a probationary employee and that respondent had made known reasonable standards for regularization. The CA found petitioner’s tests and PAR indicated substandard performance and that respondent therefore had the right to refuse regularization. Nevertheless, the CA held respondent failed to observe required procedural due process in effecting termination—specifically, that petitioner was informed by text messages rather than by a timely written notice—and directed respondent to pay nominal damages (Php30,000) to petitioner for that procedural infirmity.

Supreme Court’s Standard of Review and Exception

The Supreme Court reiterated the general rule that Rule 45 petitions raise questions of law and that the Court is not a trier of facts, but it recognized the established exceptions permitting factual re‑examination where divergent findings exist among tribunals or where conclusions are manifestly mistaken, based on speculation, or otherwise tainted by grave abuse of discretion. Because the Labor Arbiter/NLRC and the Court of Appeals reached divergent factual conclusions regarding whether petitioner was dismissed for failure to qualify or was constructively dismissed, the Court found it proper to re‑examine the record.

Supreme Court’s Findings on Qualification and Evidence

On re‑examination the Supreme Court found the Employment Agreement unambiguously established probationary status and the obligation to communicate regularization standards at engagement. The Court reviewed the objective evidence: petitioner’s low raw scores in the PTI‑Numerical (6/30, with 10 items left blank) and PTI‑Verbal (19/50), questionable written outputs (memo and personal statement), and the PAR with multiple BA ratings and an overall BA grade (1.43). The Court concluded respondent had in fact made known reasonable standards and that petitioner failed to meet those standards; therefore respondent was wit

...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