FACTS: CALS Poultry Supply Corporation is engaged in the business of selling dressed chicken and other related products. CALS hired Alfredo Roco as its driver and Candelaria Roco as a helper. Alfredo Roco and Candelaria Roco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against CALS alleging that Alfredo and Candelaria were illegally dismissed and were underpaid of their wages.
According to Alfredo Roco, he was dismissed on January 20, 1996 when he refused to accept P30,000.00 being offered to him in exchange for his executing a letter of voluntary resignation. On the part of Candelaria Roco, she averred that she was terminated without cause from her job as helper after serving more than six (6) months as probationary employee.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints for illegal dismissal stating that Alfredo was not dismissed. He unilaterally severed his relation with his employer when he did not report back for work after the expiration of his leave of absence. This, Alfredo did after the CALS’ Chief Maintenance Officer sent him a letter inquiring if he still had intentions of resuming his work. As regards, Candelaria, the LA upheld CALS’ decision not to continue with her probationary employment having been found her unsuited for the work for which her services were engaged. She was hired on May 16, 1995 and her services were terminated on November 15, 1995. As regards Edna, she was sent a memo on July 1, 1996 requiring her to report for work immediately, but she did not respond.
The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter.
The CA set aside the NLRC’s decision and ordered reinstatement of Alfredo and Candelaria to their former positions without loss of seniority of rights and benefits, with full payment of backwages. However, the CA found Edna to have actually abandoned her work without justification. In ruling in favor of Candelaria Roco, the appellate court held that when her employment was terminated on November 15, 1995 (she was hired on May 16, 1995), it was four (4) days after she ceased to be a probationary employee and became a regular employee within the ambit of Article 281 of the Labor Code, which provides:
ART. 281. Probationary employment. – Probationary employment shall not exceed six 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. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Candelaria Roco was terminated within the probationary period or after the probationary period.
RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court agrees with CALS’ contention that Candelaria’s services were terminated within and not beyond the 6-month probationary period.
In Cebu Royal v. Deputy Minister of Labor, the computation of the 6-month probationary period is reckoned from the date of appointment up to the same calendar date of the 6th month following.
Here, there is no dispute that she was employed on probationary basis. She was hired on May 16, 1995 and her services were terminated on November 15, 1995 due to poor work performance. She did not measure up to the work standards on the dressing of chicken.
