FACTS: Petitioner Voyeur Visage Studio, Inc. hired respondent Melissa on a six-month probationary basis. She worked as a Production and Planning Coordinator/Receptionist. Melissa was assigned at petitioner’s studio located in Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila. While she was at work, Kodak Philippines made a delivery of Kodak papers at petitioner’s studio. The delivery was received by Melissa. The delivered items were to be later transferred to petitioner’s laboratory. However, after the transfer, petitioner discovered that the delivery was short by two (2) boxes of Kodak papers worth six thousand pesos (₱6,000.00).
Petitioner then asked Melissa for an explanation but the latter failed to account for the shortage. She insisted, however, that at the time of delivery, the delivered items and the delivery receipt therefor tallied. Hence, there was no shortage. Petitioner made Melissa responsible for the shortage; and deducted from her salary until such time that she has fully paid the amount of ₱6,000.00. Petitioner made it appear in its payroll that the deductions were for a salary loan, although Melissa had no such loan.
After about nine (9) months since Melissa was hired on a probationary basis, she received from petitioner a memorandum; informing her of petitioner’s decision to terminate her employment.
The three (3) offices, namely, the Office of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals are one in their common finding that private respondent Melissa is petitioner’s regular employee. The Labor Arbiter ruled that private respondent was illegally dismissed, but the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, while the Court of Appeals sustained the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondent was a regular employee by rendering service for nine (9) months when she was hired for six-month probationary basis.
RULING: Yes, the private respondent was a regular employee by rendering service for nine (9) months when she was hired for six-month probationary basis.
The Supreme Court, in Cuenco vs. NLRC, held that Articles 280 and 281 of the Labor Code put an end to the pernicious practice of making permanent casuals of our lowly employees by the simple expedient of extending to them probationary appointments, ad infinitum. The contract signed by petitioners is akin to a probationary employment; during which the bank determined the employees’ fitness for the job. When the bank renewed the contract after the lapse of the six-month probationary period, the employees thereby became regular employees. No employer is allowed to determine indefinitely the fitness of its employees.
In this case, the private respondent being a regular employee enjoys the protection of the Labor Code on security of tenure and termination of employment only upon compliance with the legal requisites for a valid dismissal, which requisites embrace both substantive and procedural aspect.
Under the Labor Code, there are twin requirements to justify a valid dismissal from employment, (a) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code (substantive aspect); and (b) the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself (procedural aspect). Non-compliance with which renders the dismissal illegal; and entitles the employee concerned to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges; and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances; and to his other benefits, or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
Here, Melissa’s dismissal was not based on any of the just or authorized causes enumerated in the Labor Code.
