Policies as to employee classification/status G.R. No. 103586 July 21, 1994 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES (DAVAO PLANT), respondents. Facts: Government issued Wage Orders Nos. 3,4,5 and 6. Wage increase causes wage distortion in Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines (Davao Plant). When wage order no. 5 was implemented, regular and non-regular (casual) employees’ wages were the same. As a result, the company regularized the casual employees. The NFL wanted that the difference between the wage of the new regularized employees and the old regular employees must be based on seniority. The company contends that there is already a difference of wage but based on the CBA. Whether the company has the right to classify its employees based on the exercise of its management prerogative. Yes. A new or additional scheme of classification of employees for compensation purposes should be established by the Company (and the legitimacy or viability of the bases of distinction there embodied) is properly a matter for management judgment and discretion, and ultimately, perhaps, a subject matter for bargaining negotiations between employer and employees. It is assuredly something that falls outside the concept of "wage distortion." The Wage Orders and Article 124 as amended do not require the establishment of new classifications or sub-classifications by the employer. The NLRC is not authorized unilaterally to impose, directly or indirectly, under the guise of rectifying a "wage distortion," upon an employer a new scheme of classification of employees where none has been established either by management decision or by collective bargaining. Issue: Held: G.R. No. 110854 February 13, 1995 PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, in her capacity as Secretary of Labor and Employment, and GENERAL MARITIME & STEVEDORES UNION (GMSU), respondents. Facts: The negotiation between the company and the union collapsed. The union filed a notice of strike. The NCMB failed to resolve the issue. The Sec. of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the issue. It ordered not to exclude the four (4) foremen, a legal secretary, a timekeeper and an assistant timekeeper from the bargaining unit composed of rank-and-file employees. The company contends that these positions should be excluded from the bargaining unit because of the nature of their work. Issue: Whether the Sec. of Labor acted with grave abused of discretion in not excluding the other positions in the CBA. Held: Yes. Public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion in not excluding the four foremen and legal secretary from the bargaining unit composed of rank-and-file employees. Foremen are chief and often especially trained workmen who work with and commonly are in charge of a group of employees in an industrial plant or in construction work. They are the persons designated by the employer-management to direct the work of employees and to superintend and oversee them. They are representatives of the employer-management with authority over particular groups of workers, processes, operations, or sections of a plant or an entire organization. In the modern industrial plant, they are at once a link in the chain of command and the bridge between the management and labor. In the performance their work, foremen definitely use their independent judgment and are empowered to make recommendations for managerial action with respect to those employees under their control. Foremen fall squarely under the category of supervisory employees, and cannot be part of rankand-file unions. Upon the other hand, legal secretaries are neither managers nor supervisors. Their work is basically routinary and clerical. However, they should be differentiated from rank-and-file employees because they, are tasked with, among others, the typing of legal documents, memoranda and correspondence, the keeping of records and files, the giving of and receiving notices and such other duties as required by the legal personnel of the corporation. Legal secretaries therefore fall under the category of confidential employees. Thus, to them applies our holding in the case of Philips Industrial Development, Inv., v. NLRC, 210 SCRA 339 (1992), that: o . . . By the very functions, they assist confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons to, exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations. As such, the rationale behind the ineligibility of managerial employees to form, assist or join a labor union equally applies to them. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. LEONARD P. company alleged that Madriaga abandoned his work. INCORPORATED AND/OR BOBBY DEL ROSARIO. working methods. GERARDO H. petitioner. according to his own discretion and judgment. 149758 August 25. Whether Madriaga is a regular employee. transfer of employees. While the law recognizes and safeguards this right of an employer to exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. Respondent. No. Facts: Issue: Madriaga was hired by MTS as “batilyo” or fish hauler and eventually he became “taga-puno” (someone who filled up tub with fish). thirty (30) days prior to effectivity of termination. FREDERICK D. This reportorial function is routinary and clerical. Paguio was to solicit advertisements for "The Manila Times. PG assigned its Padcal. experience and other factors. necessary and vital to the operations of the employer’s business. Petitioners. published by respondent company. 147816 May 9. dismissal and recall of work. respondents. represented by its President. and JOSE B. time. Yes. Allegedly. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PABLO S. 2009 Doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” G. vs. The company’s prerogative must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor. Paguio. work assignments. PAMPLIEGA.. Facts: Metromedia Times Corporation entered. It is noteworthy to state that an employer is free to manage and regulate. Madriaga filed a case for illegal dismissal. all phases of employment. LIBERATO GOMEZ. Madriaga’s work as tagapuno may be likened to the work of a cargador that is directly related. They do not determine the fate of those who violate company policy rules and regulations function. Contract provisions provide that Paguio is not an employee of the company and that either party may terminate such contract any time by giving written notice to the other. A priori. No. As for the timekeeper and assistant timekeeper it is clear from petitioner's own pleadings that they are. JR." a newspaper of general circulation. The distribution of the day’s catch to the tubs of different fish traders has a reasonable connection to the fishing business of petitioner’s company. PAGUIO. It was discovered that Padcal Supervisors has a higher salaries and benefits than that of the Bulawan Supervisors. 166705 July 28. vs. After 2months from the execution of the contract. Issue: Whether the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" should not remove management prerogative to institute difference in salary within the same supervisory level. INC. They failed to differentiate this basic salary from any kind of salary increase or additional benefit that may have been given to the ex-Padcal supervisors due to their seniority. supervision of workers. BRIMO. working regulations. because petitioners failed to adduce evidence to show that an ex-Padcal supervisor and a locally hired supervisor of the same rank are initially paid the same basic salary for doing the same kind of work.R.R. It was reported that Madriaga is doing some illicit favor to some of MTS customers. On the other hand. Madriaga was barred from coming to work. METROMEDIA TIMES CORPORATION. ARAGON. Respondents. YOLANDA E. neither managerial nor supervisory employees. they are not absolute prerogatives but are subject to legal limits. which includes hiring. They are merely tasked to report those who commit infractions against company rules and regulations. It follows that they cannot be excluded from the subject bargaining unit. ROBINA Y. into an agreement with Efren P. MANTLE TRADING SERVICES. JOSEF. 2003 EFREN P.. vs. . lay-off of workers. MADRIAGA. for the fifth time. No. and the discipline. collective bargaining agreements and the general principles of fair play and justice Regular vs. Facts: Philex Gold and Philex Bulawan Supervisors Union (Mining site in Negros Occidental) entered into a CBA. PHILEX BULAWAN SUPERVISORS UNION. Petitioners. appointing the latter to be an account executive of the firm. 2005 PHILEX GOLD PHILIPPINES. Paguio received a letter terminating him. such right should not be abused and used as a tool of oppression against labor. Held: Contra: G. Casual Employees G. place and manner of work. GO and ALDA IGLESIA. Held: No.R. JOSE D. ANIEVAS. GOKONGWEI. Benguet employees as Supervisors in its mining site in Negros Occidental. Days before departure. is aptly gauged from the concurrence. They fall under the exception of Article 280 whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. not only as to the result of the work but also as to the manner and details of the performance desired. rightly taken into account by the labor arbiter. company president. clearly necessary and desirable. for the survival and continued operation of the business of Respondent Corporation. the advertising director. and Frederick Go. Due to this information.. 2007 PAUL V. which will be leaving in the port of Manila to Canada. But their request was denied for the reason that their employment was on contractual basis. 110524 July 29. Their employment is governed by the contracts they sign everytime they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract expires. Alda Iglesia. G. TRANS-GLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY. stating that Santiago will jump ship in Canada just like what his brother did. or the nonconcurrence. the advertising manager. SANTIAGO. an employment relation obtains where work is performed or services are rendered under the control and supervision of the party contracting for the service. Various solicitation letters would indeed show that Robina Gokongwei. INC. Paguio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. and that the same went on for more than a year." whether it is one or not. Under this test. LTD. Note on Seafarers G. petitioner. o The mode of payment of wages. of the following factors: o The manner of selection and engagement of the putative employee. Facts: Esso International hired petitioners through its manning agency here in the Philippines. Santiago filed a case for illegal dismissal. Whether the contract is for regular employment. Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time. respondents. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. not just once but five times. Respondent Corporation recognized petitioner's invaluable contribution to the business when it renewed. the Captain of Seaspread received a letter. among other things. to submit a daily sales activity report and also a monthly sales report as well. An indicum of regular employment. Petitioner was an account executive in soliciting advertisements. INC. o The presence or absence of the power to control the conduct of the putative employee or the power to control the employee with respect to the means or methods by which his work is to be accomplished. was the reservation by respondent Metromedia Times Corporation not only of the right to control the results to be achieved but likewise the manner and the means used in reaching that end. No. its contract with petitioner. Inc. 2002 Issue: Held: DOUGLAS MILLARES and ROGELIO LAGDA. The "control test" assumes primacy in the overall consideration.R. No. herself admitted that the income generated from paid advertisements was the lifeblood of the newspaper's existence. vs.R. They cannot be considered as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Santiago was replaced and informed that he will not be going to Canada but he was reassured that he might be considered for deployment at some future date. and ESSO INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CO. respondent. directed and monitored the sales activities of petitioner. He would be deployed in MSV Seaspread. A "regular employment. 162419 July 10. Robina Gokongwei. Yes. Facts: Petitioner had been working as a seafarer for Smith Bell Management. o The presence or absence of the power of dismissal. could hardly be denied. That petitioner performed activities that were necessary and desirable to the business of the employer.. Implicitly. He signed another contract for 9 months and the contract was approved by the POEA. vs. Petitioners decided to take a leave and plan to avail the optional retirement plan under the Consecutive Enlistment Incentive Plan (CEIP) considering that they had already rendered more than twenty (20) years of continuous service. petitioners. its President. Held: Seafarers are considered contractual employees. Regular employee is one who is engaged to perform activities that are necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer as against those which are undertaken for a specific project or are seasonal. (respondent) for about five (5) years. CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT. damages . Issue: Whether the petitioners’ employment was on contractual basis.10 Metromedia Times Corporation exercised such control by requiring petitioner. . NILDA P. 172038 April 14. NELDA TORMON.. JR. vs. After a few months Dela Cruz was informed that he would be terminated under Art 1(7) of the CBA of Shipping and its employees. MAGELENDE H. Even the POEA Standard Employment Contract itself mandates that in no case shall a contract of employment concerning seamen exceed 12 months. The exigencies of their work necessitates that they be employed on a contractual basis. INC. and ANGEL T. Their employment is governed by the contracts they sign every time they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract expires.20 Instead. which merits them to terminate him. Held: G. v. respondents. NLRC. VALENCIANO. VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY.S. Zamora. A. 2008 DANTE DELA CRUZ. what was really meant was "eligible for re-hire. HON. more importantly. culture and language among the crew necessitates the limitation of the period of employment. petitioners made much of the fact that they were continually re-hired for 20 years by private respondent Esso International. vs. by Republic Act No. INC. VILLA and the VICMICO SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (VICSEA). this Court had occasion to rule on the use of the terms "permanent and probationary masters and employees" vis-à-vis contracts of enlistment of seafarers. and. Issue: Whether petitioner is a regular employee. 1977 REGINA S. otherwise known as The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.R. MAERSK CREWING. Seafarers cannot stay for a long and indefinite period of time at sea as limited access to shore activity during their employment has been shown to adversely affect them. Petitioner was made to disembarked and repatriated to Manila Petitioner filed a case for illegal termination and that he is already a regular employee when he was terminated. No.R. VICENTE LEOGARDO. and ELITE SHIPPING. Dela Cruz was terminated under this provision and that he was informed that his performance did not meet the required qualification by the ship captain. L-44360 March 31. the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment. BISO. Furthermore. as defined under Article 280 of the Labor Code. FE CUBIN. Inc. they claimed to have acquired regular status with all the rights and benefits appurtenant thereto. and JOAQUIN A. INC. In using the terms "probationary" and "permanent" vis-à-vis seafarers. respondent Facts: Issue: Elite shipping hired Dela Cruz as 3rd engineer through Maersk Crewing. we already held that seafarers are not covered by the term regular employment. Facts: Held: . petitioners. By such circumstances. in his capacity as Deputy Minister of Ministry of Labor and Employment judgment. PANALIGAN. the Court ruled that seafarers are considered contractual employees and cannot be considered as regular employees under the Labor Code. 8042. the diversity in nationality. they are considered contractual employees whose rights and obligations are governed primarily by the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen (POEA Standard Employment Contract). as early as Brent School. and the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES. In Millares v. No. respondents. He still cannot be considered a regular employee. NENITA B. But the respondent assailed that he is on probationary status only. No. Whether the petitioner is a regular employee. ARDE M. It did not change the fact that the contract for employment was for a definite period of time. petitioners. Art 1(7) of the CBA provides that the first 60 days of service is considered as a probationary period and the ship owner or ship captain may terminate the contract after giving a 14-day notice. National Labor Relations Commission. It is an accepted maritime industry practice that the employment of seafarers is for a fixed period only. petitioner vs. The Court acknowledges this to be for the mutual interest of both the seafarer and the employer. TAYO. 1989 MARIWASA MANUFACTURING.and assailed that he is a regular employee. 74246 January 26. This was reiterated in Coyoca v. EMERITA O. LINDA E.R. National Labor Relations Commission. DEQUILA. The Court quoted with favor the NLRC's explanation that the reference to permanent and probationary masters and employees was a misnomer. DAZO. In that case. regardless of his previous contracts of employment with respondent." Probationary Employees G. In Millares v. No. DEMEGILLDO. MA. It is well to remind both parties that. Facts: G. BIBOSO.. It is expressly provided in the afore-quoted Article 281 that a probationary employee may be terminated only on two Issue: Held: International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC). that her services were being terminated for her failure to meet the prescribed standards of petitioner as reflected in the performance evaluation of her supervisors during the teacher evaluation program. Held: G. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and BERNADETTE GALANG. as a general utility worker. Upon the expiration of the probationary period of six months. LEON M. the extension of Dequila's probation was ex gratia. by reasonably extending the period of probation. 2007 Held: Yes. The law. The Court finds nothing in the law that by any fair interpretation prohibits such a waiver. 1989 INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION. Such an act cannot now unjustly be turned against said employer's account to compel it to keep on its payroll one who could not perform according to its work standards. respondents. Facts: G. was never meant to produce such an inequitable result. And no public policy protecting the employee and the security of his tenure is served by prescribing voluntary agreements that. he and PDI agreed to a fifteen-day contract extension. Magtibay was employed under said position and status. MAGTIBAY. 72222 January 30. Bataan engaged the . Before the expiration of the probationary period he was terminated by PDI.. Dequila filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and contending that he becomes a regular employee. petitioner. orally and in writing. vs. Respondents. For aught that appears of record. She was given the proportionate amount of her 13th month pay and the equivalent of her twoweek pay. JR. To give him a chance to improve his performance and qualify for regular employment. hence. and PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER EMPLOYEES UNION (PDIEU). 164532 July 24. considering that he had been employed by and had worked for PDI for a total period of ten months. By voluntarily agreeing to an extension of the probationary period. probationary employees are still entitled to security of tenure. Petitioner. After 3 months. PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER. Joaquin A. with his written consent Mariwasa extended his probation period for another three months. however. INC. vs. No. Whether or not. an act of liberality on the part of his employer affording him a second chance to make good after having initially failed to prove his worth as an employee. probationary employment may validly be extended beyond the prescribed sixmonth period by agreement of the employer and the employee. No. surely. Whether he was not apprised at the beginning of his employment of the performance standards of the company. Facts: Magtibay was first hired by PDI as a casual employee to assist its telephone operator. Dequila was hired on probation by petitioner Mariwasa Manufacturing. Issue: services of private respondent Bernadette Galang as a probationary cultural orientation teacher. He also claimed that he was not apprised at the beginning of his employment of the performance standards of the company. private respondent was informed. Article 282 of the Labor Code notwithstanding. instead of dispensing with his service then and there.R. His performance. a non-profit organization dedicated to refugee service at the Philippine Refugee Processing Center in Morong. Dequila was informed by his employer that his work had proved unsatisfactory and had failed to meet the required standards. Magtibay anchored his case principally on the postulate that he had become a regular employee by operation of law. She filled a complaint for illegal dismissal. Dequila in effect waived any benefit attaching to the completion of said period if he still failed to make the grade during the period of extension. did not improve and on that account Mariwasa terminated his employment at the end of the extended period. as extended. Issue: Whether or not an employee who was terminated during the probationary period of her employment is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of her six-month probationary employment. Before the expiration of Magtibay’s contractual employment. actually improve and further a probationary employee's prospects of demonstrating his fitness for regular employment. Inc. Within the limited legal six-month probationary period. there was no basis for his dismissal. After the expiration of Magtibay’s contractual employment.R. PDI announced the creation and availability of a new position for a second telephone operator who would undergo probationary employment. Mercedes P. it is shown that private respondent Company needs at least eighteen (18) months to determine the character and selling capabilities of the petitioners as sales representatives. are expected to comply with company-imposed rules and regulations. be they regular or probationary. or when the job requires certain qualifications. else why establish them in the first place. 1991. conduct and selling capabilities only after the publication of the directory. L-63316 July 31. therefore find sufficient factual and legal basis. In the latter case. permanent employment. respondents. 109114 September 14. MA. and selling ability of its sales representatives. CO. Held: General rule: The probationary period of employment is limited to six (6) months. The suggestion that Magtibay ought to have been made to understand during his briefing and orientation that he is expected to obey and comply with company rules and regulations strains credulity for acceptance. INTENGAN. vs. Issue: Whether probationary period is limited only to 6 months. petitioners. Failing to meet their respective sales quotas. such as when the same is established by company policy or when the same is required by the nature of work to be performed by the employee. such as in the present case where the probationary period was set for eighteen (18) months.R. in his capacity as Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Labor & Employment. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissals. there is recognition of the exercise of managerial prerogatives in requiring a longer period of probationary employment. In the case at bar. and that it takes about eighteen (18) months before his worth as a telephone saw representative can be fully evaluated inasmuch as the advertisement solicited by him for a particular year are published in the directory only the following year. G. experience or training. which in turn constitute sufficient manifestations of his inadequacy to meet reasonable employment norms. Ma. No. The CA’s observation that "nowhere can it be found in the list of Basic Responsibility and Specific Duties and Responsibilities of respondent Magtibay that he has to abide by the duties. The private respondent prescribed sales quotas to be accomplished or met by the petitioners. The Employee recognizes the fact that the nature of the telephone sales representative's job is such that the company would be able to determine his true character. petitioners. 1993 HOLIDAY INN MANILA and/or HUBERT LINER and BABY DISQUITADO. VICENTE LEOGARDO. CECILIA RILLOACUÑA and MA. a corporation engaged in the business of publication and circulation of the directory of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. for PDI to legally terminate Magtibay’s probationary employment effective upon the end of the 6-month probationary period. the petitioners were dismissed from the service by the private respondent. conduct. Publication of solicited ads are only made a year after the sale has been made and only then win the company be able to evaluate the efficiency. G. Company hereby employs the employee as telephone representative on a probationary status for a period of eighteen (18) months. much less demand. The Company is engaged in advertisement and publication in the Yellow Pages of the PLDT Telephone Directories. Exception: When the parties to an employment contract may agree otherwise. No. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Second Division) and ELENA HONASAN. rules and regulations that he has allegedly violated" is a strained rationalization of an unacceptable conduct of an employee. All employees. It is on record that Magtibay committed obstinate infractions of company rules and regulations. respondents. Facts: Iluminada Ver Buiser. 1984 ILUMINADA VER BUISER. accepted for "on-the-job training" as a telephone operator . the evaluation being based on the published ads. Intengan entered into an "Employment Contract (on Probationary Status)" with private respondent. especially where the employee must learn a particular kind of work such as selling. The court do not agree with the appellate court when it cleared the NLRC of commission of grave abuse of discretion despite the latter’s disregard of clear and convincing evidence that there were reasonable standards made known by PDI to Magtibay during his probationary employment. Facts: Elena Honasan applied for employment with the Holiday Inn and was on April 15. Common industry practice and ordinary human experience do not support the CA’s posture. MERCEDES P. or (b) 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. The court. vs. skills. and GENERAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY. HON.. duly established by substantial evidence. Cecilia Rillo-Acuna and Ma. JR.grounds: (a) for just cause. Probationary employees unwilling to abide by such rules have no right to expect.R.. 96779 November 10. the period was for three weeks. as already observed. LEILA DOMINGUEZ. without any force. and next during another period of six months. Leila Dominguez. If her services proved unsatisfactory then. No.R. she was employed on a "probationary basis" for a period of six months. Her employment contract stipulated that the Hotel could terminate her probationary employment at any time prior to the expiration of the six-month period in the event of her failure (a) to learn or progress in her job. Apollo Ribaya. they were notified of petitioners' decision not to renew their contracts anymore. Eugenio Baltao. her services were continued. signed contracts of employment with petitioner for a fixed duration. Held: The petitioner placed Honasan on probation twice. Except for private respondent Leila Dominguez who worked with petitioners for one semester. Honasan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Roland Picart. Brent case o Accordingly. JANE BENTREZ. on account of their below-par performance as teachers. vs. ostensibly in accordance with Article 281. Facts: Private respondents Dangwa Bentrez. Sr. Private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. she could have been dropped as early as during that period. Her probation clearly exceeded the period of six months prescribed by this article. Dra. the remaining private respondents were hired as college instructors. duress or improper pressure brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent. Concepcion. Nimia R. the clause in said article indiscriminately and completely ruling out all written and oral agreements conflicting with the concept of regular employment as defined therein should be construed to refer to the substantive evil that the Code itself has singled out: agreements entered into precisely to prevent security of tenure. 1993 PINE CITY EDUCATIONAL CENTER and EUGENIO BALTAO. the petitioners in effect recognized that she had passed probation and was qualified to be a regular employee.. Holiday Inn notified her of her dismissal. Cecilia Emocling. alleging that their dismissals were without cause and in violation of due process. Honasan was certainly under observation during her three-week on-the-job training. and since the entire purpose behind the development of legislation culminating in the present Article 280 of the Labor Code clearly appears to have been. (b) to faithfully observe and comply with the hotel rules and the instructions and orders of her superiors. petitioners. CECILIA EMOCLING. claiming that she was already a regular employee at the time of her separation and so was entitled to full security of tenure. on the ground that her performance had not come up to the standards of the Hotel. Probation is the period during which the employer may determine if the employee is qualified for possible inclusion in the regular force. or where it satisfactorily appears that the . Due to the expiration of private respondents' contracts and their poor performance as teachers. When her services were continued after this training. In the case at bar. presumably because they were acceptable. They were never informed in writing by petitioner regarding the standards or criteria of evaluation so as to enable them to meet the requirements for appointment as regular employees. On the contrary. represented in this proceedings by its President. through its chancellor. They were merely notified in writing by petitioners.. VIRGINIA BOADO. although she was formally placed this time on probation. of the termination of their respective services. to prevent circumvention of the employee's right to be secure in his tenure. or (c) to perform her duties according to hotel standards.for a period of three weeks. On probationary employment with a term G. APOLLO RIBAYA. ROSE ANN BERMUDEZ and LUCIA CHAN. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION) and DANGWA BENTREZ. during Honasan's on-the-job training. Rose Ann Bermudez and Lucia Chan were all employed as teachers on probationary basis by petitioner Pines City Educational Center. respondents. Four days before the expiration of the stipulated deadline. except Roland Picart and Lucia Chan. But she was not. Virginia Boado. all other private respondents were employed for one to two years. Issue: Whether private respondents contention is correct. Issue: Whether Honasan is a regular employee. It should have no application to instances where a fixed period of employment was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties. Jane Bentrez. All the private respondents. ROLAND PICART. With the exception of Jane Bentrez who was hired as a grade school teacher. SR. Ruperta Ribaya. RUPERTA RIBAYA. first during her on-the-job training for three weeks. After completing her training. Held: No. Bernas explained to petitioner that she was not being terminated. together with twenty other teachers. ALBA. Petitioners.R. She was again hired for a third year. competence and attitude of a probationer. ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY. vs. 183572 April 13. instead of relying solely on the affidavits of their witnesses. LACHICA. they are likewise protected by the security of tenure provision of the Constitution. unjust in its effects and apt to lead to absurd and unintended consequences. She was re-hired. JR. During these three years she was on probation status. TONOG. Petitioner failed to substantiate their claim by documentary evidence. The word "probationary. Petitioner sent two separate Memoranda to respondents placing them under preventive suspension for a period of thirty days for maligning the school.R.R. YOLANDA M. 2008 G. No. LEOVINO MA. CHARITO S. Respondents. The unavoidable inference. DR. Petitioner was first appointed as full-time instructor on probation. on a contractual basis. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGEPARAÑAQUE CITY. No. Petitioner was offered to work in the University Press.). and they were subjected to yearly evaluation by the students and by the school administrators (principal and vice-principal). Facts: Petitioners were hired as faculty in AMACC in 1998. While the employer observes the fitness. MERCADO. Fr. PE BENITO and RANDY T. Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Their contracts of employment covered a three (3) year probationary period. therefore. Considering that respondents were on probation for three years. As such. Petitioner. Unless thus limited in its purview. Facts: Woodridge School hired Joanne C. it is safe to assume that the results thereof were definitely documented. BALAGUER. Lolita R. LACUESTA. for the first and second semesters. INC. Petitioner. but her contract would simply expire. propriety and efficiency of a probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment. MARGARITO M. they had not yet completed three (3) years of satisfactory service as academic personnel that would have entitled them to tenure as permanent employees in accordance with the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. . informing respondents that they did not qualify as regular employees for their failure to meet the performance standards made known to them at the start of their probationary period." as used to describe the period of employment. GARCIA and DR. Respondents.employer or employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter. is being observed and evaluated to determine whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment.. G. 2005 LOLITA R. A probationary employee is one who. 2010 WOODRIDGE SCHOOL (now known as WOODRIDGE COLLEGE. the law would be made to apply to purposes other than those expressly stated by its framers.. JOANNE C. Held: Respondents were not regular or permanent employees. October 29. With respect to private respondents Roland Picart and Lucia Chan. it thus becomes pointless and arbitrary. still on a contractual basis. MARIJO RUIZ. both of who did not sign any contract fixing the periods of their employment nor to have knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon fixed periods of employment. the probationer at the same time seeks to prove to the employer that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for permanent employment. implies the purpose of the term or period. G. vs. in the same department. remains that the respondents’ dismissal is invalid. Lacuesta as a part-time lecturer in its English Department for the second semester. her contract as faculty on probation was renewed. No. Pe Benito and Randy T. Petitioner was notified that her contract would not be renewed because she did not integrate will in the English Department. A probationary appointment affords the employer an opportunity to observe the skill. Facts: Ateneo de Manila University hired. petitioners had the burden of proving that the termination of their services was legal. Petitioner issued respondents their Notice of Termination. Respondent. Balaguer as probationary high school teachers. Issue: Whether respondents are regular employees. INC. for a given period of time. 160240 presented petitioner with a Manifesto Establishing Relevant Issues Concerning the School. DE LEON. As probationary employees. and FELIX A. Respondents. Thereafter. DIANA R. vs. 152777 December 9. petitioner should have presented the evaluation reports and other related documents to support its claim. hence AMACC did not give them any salary increase. high academic qualifications and research background. potential. and for discriminatory practices. 13th month pay. the petitioners filed a complaint with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC for underpayment of wages. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Petitioners individually received a memorandum from AMACC. . In 2000-2001 AMACC adopted a new faculty screening guidelines. This is also used to determine the present faculty members’ entitlement to salary increases. informing them that with the expiration of their contract to teach. teachers were to be hired or maintained based on extensive teaching experience. non-payment of overtime and overload compensation. their contract would no longer be renewed. The petitioners failed to obtain a passing rating based on the performance standards. Because of AMACC’s action on the salary increases. capability. Under the new screening guidelines.