SC-2012-0067: MYLENE CARVAJAL VS. LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK (G.R. NO. 186169, 12 AUGUST 2012, PEREZ, J.) SUBJECT/S: DISMISSAL OF A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE. (BRIEF TITLE: CARVAJAL VS. LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK).

 

=======================

 

 

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

 

 

In sum, petitioner was validly dismissed from probationary employment before the expiration of her 6-month probationary employment contract. If the termination is for cause, it may be done anytime during the probation; the employer docs not have to wait until the probation period is over. With a valid reason for petitioner’s dismissal coupled with the proper observance of due process, the claim for back wages must necessarily fail.

 

 

In view of the foregoing, we find no reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals.

 

 

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

 

 

SO ORDERED.

 

 

=======================

 

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGESTS

 

 

CARVAJAL, A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE, FILED A CASE FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. SHE WON. BUT SHE FILED AN APPEARL AT NLRC QUESTIONING THE COMPUTATION OF BACKWAGES.  RESPONDENT BANK RAISED THE ISSUE OF ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. NLRC UPHOLD ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. BUT CA RULED THERE WAS NO ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. AT SC  CARVAJAL ARGUED THE ISSUE ON DISMISSAL MUST NOT BE RAISED BECAUSE IT HAS ALREADY BECOME FINAL WHEN THE BANK DID NOT APPEAL THE ARBITER’S DECISION. IS CARVAJAL CORRECT?

 

 

NO. AN APPEAL, ONCE ACCEPTED BY SC, THROWS THE ENTIRE CASE FOR REVIEW AND SC CAN REVIEW MATTERS NOT SPECIFICALLY RAISED AS ERROR IF THEIR CONSIDERATION IS NECESSARY FOR A JUST RESOLUTION OF THE CASE.

 

 

“Truly, it is axiomatic that an appeal, once accepted by this Court, throws the entire case open to review, and that this Court has the authority to review matters not specifically raised or assigned as error by the parties, if their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just resolution of the case.”

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

CARVAJALARGUED THAT SHE COULD NOT BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF HER CHRONIC TARDINESS BECAUSE WHEN SHE WAS NOT HIRED SHE WAS NOT INFORMED THAT NOT INCURRING  “CHRONIC TARTIDESS” IS A REASONABLE STANDARD SHE MUST OBSERVE. THE IMPLEMENTING RULES PROVIDE THAT WHEN NO STANDARDS ARE MADE KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME OF EMPLOYMENT, HE SHALL BE DEEMED A REGULAR EMPLOYEE. IS CARVAJAL CORRECT?

 

 

NO. IT IS BUT COMMON SENSE THAT SHE MUST ABIDE BY THE WORK HOURS IMPOSED BY THE BANK. PUNCTUALITY IS A REASONABLE STANDARD IMPOSED ON EVERY EMPLOYEE.  THE RULE ON REASONABLE STANDARDS MADE KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE PRIOR TO ENGAGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE USED TO EXCULPATE A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE WHO ACTS IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO BASIC KNOWLEDGE AND COMMON SENSE, IN REGARD TO WHICH THERE IS NO NEED TO SPELL OUT A POLICY OR STANDARD TO BE MET.

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

WHAT ARE THE LEGAL CAUSES FOR TERMINATING A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE?

 

 

THERE ARE THREE:

 

 

(1) A JUST CAUSE  OR

 

 

(2) AN AUTHORIZED CAUSE AND

 

 

(3) WHEN HE FAILS TO QUALIFY AS A REGULAR EMPLOYEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH REASONABLE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY THE EMPLOYER.22

 

 

“A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys security of tenure. However, in cases of probationary employment, aside from just or

authorized causes of termination, an additional ground is provided under Article 281 of the Labor Code, i.e., the probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of the engagement. Thus, the services of an employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated for any of the following: (1) a just or (2) an authorized cause and (3) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.”

 

 

READ THE FULL CASE BY DOWNLOADING THE FILE BELOW.

 SCD-2012-0067-CARVAJAL-AUG 2102