Scribd
Upload
86 views2 pages

Alcira vs. National Labor Relations Commission

The case of Alcira vs. National Labor Relations Commission involves a probationary employee, Radin C. Alcira, who filed a complaint for illegal dismissal after being terminated before the end of his probationary period. The Supreme Court ruled that Alcira was still a probationary employee at the time of his dismissal and that Middleby had adequately informed him of the standards for regularization. Consequently, the petition for review was denied, affirming the lower courts' decisions regarding the legality of his termination.

Uploaded by

Jyzel Cris Factor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
86 views2 pages

Alcira vs. National Labor Relations Commission

The case of Alcira vs. National Labor Relations Commission involves a probationary employee, Radin C. Alcira, who filed a complaint for illegal dismissal after being terminated before the end of his probationary period. The Supreme Court ruled that Alcira was still a probationary employee at the time of his dismissal and that Middleby had adequately informed him of the standards for regularization. Consequently, the petition for review was denied, affirming the lower courts' decisions regarding the legality of his termination.

Uploaded by

Jyzel Cris Factor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Alcira vs.

National Labor Relations Commission


Probationary: Criteria Regularization
Alcira vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Jun 9, 2004 G.R. No. 149859 Corona., J
Recit Ready Synopsis
A probationary employee files a complaint for illegal dismissal against his employer after his contract expires
and he fails to meet the standards for regularization, leading to a legal battle over the starting date of his
employment and allegations of poor performance and rule violations.
Provisions/Concepts/Doctrines and How Applied to the Case
Article 281 of 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. An employee who is allowed to work after a
probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.
FACTS
Radin C. Alcira, the petitioner, was hired by Middleby Philippines Corporation (Middleby) as an engineering
support services supervisor on a probationary basis for six months. The employment contract indicated
conflicting starting dates: May 20, 1996, according to Alcira, and May 27, 1996, according to Middleby. Both
documents stated that Alcira's performance would be evaluated after five months, and any salary adjustment
would depend on his work performance.

On November 20, 1996, Alcira was allegedly dismissed when a senior officer withheld his time card and did not
allow him to work.

Alcira filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on
November 21, 1996, claiming he had become a regular employee by then. Middleby defended the termination,
citing Alcira's poor performance, absences, tardiness, and rule violations.

The labor arbiter dismissed Alcira's complaint on May 19, 1998, ruling that he was apprised of the standards
for regularization and was terminated before the end of his probationary period. The NLRC and the Court of
Appeals affirmed this decision, leading Alcira to file a petition for review.

ISSUE/S (relevant to the syllabus)


1. Whether petitioner was allowed to work beyond his probationary period and was therefore already a
regular employee at the time of his alleged dismissal? No.
2. Whether respondent Middleby informed petitioner of the standards for regularization at the start of his
employment.
RULING (include how the law was applied)
1) The first issue we must resolve is whether petitioner was allowed to work beyond his probationary period
and was therefore already a regular employee at the time of his alleged dismissal. The SC ruled in the
negative.
Petitioner claims that under the terms of his contract, his probationary employment was only for five months as
indicated by the remark. Please be informed that after five months, your performance shall be evaluated and
any adjustment in salary shall depend on your work performance. The argument lacks merit. Petitioner insists
that he already attained the status of a regular employee when he was dismissed on November 20, 1996
because, having started work on May 20, 1996, the six-month probationary period ended on November 16,
1996, citing the computation under Article 13 of the Civil Code. The Court reiterated their ruling in CALS
Poultry Supply case that “(O)ur 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. In short, since the number of days in
each particular month was irrelevant, petitioner was still a probationary employee when respondent Middle by
opted not to regularized him on November 20, 1996.”z

2) Section 6 (d) of Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code (Department Order No. 10,
Series of 1997) provides that:xxx (d) In all cases of probationary employment, the employer shall make known
to the employee the standards under which he will qualify as a regular employee at the time of his
engagement. Where no standards are made known to the employee at that time, he shall be deemed a regular
employee.

The Court held that respondent Middleby substantially notified petitioner of the standards to qualify as a regular
employee when it apprised him, at the start of his employment, that it would evaluate his supervisory skills after
five months.

It is settled that even if probationary employees do not enjoy permanent status, they are accorded the
constitutional protection of security of tenure. This means they may only be terminated for just cause or when
they otherwise fail to qualify as regular employees in accordance with reasonable standards made known to
them by the employer at the time of their engagement.

But we have also ruled in Manlimos, et. al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission [15] that this constitutional
protection ends on the expiration of the probationary period. On that date, the parties are free to either renew
or terminate their contract of employment. Manlimos concluded that a(t)his development has rendered moot
the question of whether there was a just cause for the dismissal of the petitioners ....a [16] In the case at bar,
respondent Middleby exercised its option not to renew the contract when it informed petitioner on the last day
of his probationary employment that it did not intend to grant him a regular status.

DISPOSITIVE

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy