FACTS: Petitioner de la Cruz was hired by private respondent Shemberg Marketing Corporation as senior sales manager on a probationary basis. His duties included, among others, the supervision and control of the sales force of the company. However, Shemberg’s human resource department manager, Ms. Lilybeth Y. Llanto, summoned petitioner and informed him of the management’s decision to terminate his services.
Petitioner asked Llanto for the reason but the latter merely informed him that it had something to do with the drop in the company’s sales. His request to be furnished a 30-day written notice was also denied by the management. Hence, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary, backwages, 13th month pay and damages against Shemberg, Ernesto Dacay, Jr. and Lilybeth Llanto.
Respondents answered that petitioner’s dismissal was premised on the following: (1) his poor performance as evidenced by the steady and substantial drop in company sales since his assumption as senior sales manager; (2) the dissatisfaction of his subordinates over his management style and dealings with the company’s distributors, which resulted in the low morale of Shemberg’s sales force; (3) his unauthorized use of company cellular phone for overseas personal calls; and (4) the unauthorized reimbursement of the plane tickets of his wife and child. In short, petitioner was terminated for his failure to meet the required company standards and for loss of trust and confidence.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner de la Cruz was illegally dismissed and granted his claim for separation pay, backwages and unpaid wages.
The NLRC dismissed the appeal. The CA likewise dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is on probationary period and his poor performance maybe a ground for his termination of employment.
RULING: Yes, the petitioner is on probationary employment and maybe terminated on the ground of poor performance.
Under the Labor Code, probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards, made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement.
Petitioner vigorously contends that he was not a probationary employee since Shemberg failed to disclose to him the reasonable standards for qualifying as a regular employee. This Supreme Court notes, however, the evidence on record clearly showing that petitioner was well informed of the standards to be met before he could qualify as a regular employee and was stated in his appointment paper.
A probationary employee is one who, for a given period of time, is under observation and evaluation to determine whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment. During the probationary period, the employer is given the opportunity to observe the skill, competence and attitude of the employee while the latter seeks to prove to the employer that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for permanent employment. The length of time is immaterial in determining the correlative rights of both the employer and the employee in dealing with each other during said period.
There is no dispute that petitioner, as a probationary employee, enjoyed only temporary employment status. In general terms, this meant that he was terminable anytime, permanent employment not having been attained in the meantime. The employer could well decide he no longer needed the probationary employee’s services or his performance fell short of expectations, etc. As long as the termination was made before the expiration of the six-month probationary period, the employer was well within his rights to sever the employer-employee relationship. A contrary interpretation would defect the clear meaning of the term “probationary.” In this case, respondent Shemberg had good reason to terminate petitioner’s employment and that was his dishonesty.
