Case Summary (G.R. No. 221356)
Background and Employment Claims
Petitioner began working for the respondent in June 2012 without signing any prior employment contract, performing supervisory duties over casino dealers and gaming operations. Seven months into employment, she was asked to sign two probationary employment contracts dated retroactively—one covering five months and another three months. In February 2013, petitioner was informed her employment ended and was asked to sign an exit clearance, ceasing work thereafter. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming she had attained regular employee status after working beyond the six-month probationary period mandated by law.
Respondent’s Position and Defense
Respondent acknowledged hiring petitioner on a probationary basis with the initial contract from June 19 to November 18, 2012, and claimed an agreed extension for three more months until February 18, 2013. Respondent argued that after evaluating petitioner’s satisfactory performance during the extended probation, they offered to retain her as a regular employee, which petitioner declined due to the non-retention of a close co-worker. Petitioner voluntarily processed an exit clearance. Respondent denied illegal dismissal, characterizing separation as petitioner’s choice.
Labor Arbiter’s Findings
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, ruling that petitioner failed to prove an unlawful dismissal. It found no overt act terminating employment by respondent and that petitioner voluntarily separated from work. The Labor Arbiter ordered payment only of night shift differentials but exonerated the general manager from liabilities.
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Ruling
The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, declaring petitioner a regular employee by operation of law due to her working beyond the lawful probationary period. It held that the extension of probation was not supported by proper performance evaluations or justifications. NLRC ruled petitioner was illegally dismissed and ordered her reinstatement with full backwages and benefits, awarding attorney’s fees. The motion for reconsideration filed by respondent was denied.
Court of Appeals (CA) Decision
The CA reversed the NLRC, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of the complaint. It reasoned petitioner failed to establish dismissal by the respondent because there was no clear evidence of refusal to allow work nor any written termination notice. The exit clearance signed by petitioner was interpreted as voluntary separation. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration.
Supreme Court Review and Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court, applying the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant labor laws, found merit in the petition. It stressed the rule that questions of fact are generally not reconsidered except under specific exceptions such as grave abuse of discretion or misapprehension of facts. The Court observed that the CA misapprehended key facts and overlooked important evidence relating to the timing and execution of probationary contracts.
The petitioner consistently asserted that she only signed the probationary contracts in January 2013, seven months after starting work. The actual contracts bear the January 19, 2013 date beside petitioner’s signature, confirming this delay. The Probation Extension Letter was dated January 10, 2013, well after the initial probationary period supposedly ended November 18, 2012, evidencing the contracts were backdated and likely a scheme to mask the actual employment status and termination.
Probationary Employment under Article 281 of the Labor Code
The Labor Code limits probationary employment to six months unless a longer period is expressly agreed upon in apprenticeship cases. An employee who works beyond probation shall be considered regular, gaining security of tenure and protection against arbitrary dismissal. Petitioner had rendered service from June 19, 2012 until February 18, 2013, over six months, thus attaining regular employee status by operation of law.
The respondent failed to justify a valid extension of the probationary period because:
- No valid performance evaluation was conducted before the extension.
- The extension was made after the original probationary period had already lapsed.
- Petitioner had a commendable performance rating on February 1, 2013, which negated grounds for non-regularization.
The petitioner’s continued work past six months without proper notice constituted acceptance in a regular capacity.
On Illegal Dismissal and Remedies
Having attained regular status, petitioner enjoys security of tenure and may only be dismissed for just or authorized cause with due process. The absence of a formal termination, proper cause, and procedural due process results in illegal dismissal. The Court reinstated the NLRC’s decision ordering petitioner’s reinstatement without loss of seniority and paymen
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 221356)
Background and Procedural History
- The case arises from a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Maria Carmela P. Umali (petitioner) against her employer, Hobbywing Solutions, Inc. (respondent), and its general manager, Pate Tan.
- Petitioner worked as a Pitboss Supervisor in an online casino gaming establishment starting June 19, 2012, responsible for supervising casino dealers and overseeing the gaming area.
- Petitioner initially rendered service without signing any employment contract, but received monthly salary payments.
- In January 2013, petitioner was asked to sign two employment contracts retrospectively covering June 19, 2012 to November 19, 2012, and November 19, 2012 to February 18, 2013.
- On February 18, 2013, petitioner was informed her employment had ended and was told to wait for possible rehiring or regularization; she was required to sign an exit clearance and was no longer allowed to work.
- Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal claiming she became a regular employee by working beyond six months without cause for termination.
Position of the Parties
- Petitioner contended that she was regularized by operation of law after rendering seven months of service without a contract, and that her termination lacked just cause and due process.
- Respondent admitted to hiring petitioner on a probationary basis for five months, extended by three months, with contracts signed in mid-January 2013 as a formality.
- Respondent asserted petitioner declined an offer of regular employment, voluntarily processed her exit clearance and was not dismissed.
- Respondent emphasized the probationary status and cited company evaluation leading to extension of probation for improvement.
Labor Arbiter's Ruling
- The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit.
- It ruled petitioner failed to prove she was dismissed; rather, she voluntarily ceased working.
- Respondent did not commit overt acts to sever the employment relationship and even offered regular employment which petitioner declined.
- Petitioner was awarded night shift differentials; all other claims were denied.
- Respondent’s general manager was exonerated from liability.
NLRC Ruling
- The NLRC partially granted petitioner's appeal, declaring her a regular employee by operation of law.
- It held her dismissal was illegal, ordering reinstatement without loss of seniority and payment of full backwages from dismissal to reinstatement.
- The NLRC found respondent’s claim of valid probation e