International Catholic Migration Commission v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) engaged the services of private respondent Bernadette Galang as a probationary cultural orientation teacher on January 24, 1983, with a monthly salary of P2,000.00. Three months later, on April 22, 1983, private respondent was informed, orally and in writing, that her services were terminated for failure to meet the prescribed standards of petitioner, as reflected in her performance evaluation. Despite termination, private respondent remained in the ICMC refugee camp for a few days, allegedly acting strangely. She returned on July 24, 1983, to accomplish clearance requirements and was found in Freedom Park, wet, shivering, and acting bizarrely, prompting her admission to petitioner's hospital. Two days later, she was taken to her residence in Manila, and her father received her proportionate 13th-month pay and two weeks' pay. On August 22, 1983, private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, and unpaid wages. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal and damages but ordered petitioner to pay private respondent P6,000.00 for the unexpired portion of her employment. Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC, by a majority vote, sustained the Labor Arbiter's decision, dismissing both appeals. Commissioner Varela dissented, voting to reverse the Labor Arbiter's decision. The Petition: Petitioner filed the instant petition, maintaining that private respondent was not entitled to salary for the unexpired portion of her probationary period due to her failure to qualify as a regular employee, and that termination on valid grounds during probation does not warrant payment for services not rendered.
Issue(s)
Whether an employee terminated during her probationary period for failure to meet prescribed standards is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of her employment. Whether the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering petitioner to pay private respondent salary for the unexpired portion of her probationary employment.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated August 22, 1985, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as it ordered petitioner to pay private respondent her P6,000.00 salary for the unexpired portion of her six-month probationary employment. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of entitlement to salary for the unexpired portion of probationary employment: The Court found that there was a justifiable basis for the reversal of the NLRC's award. The termination of private respondent was during her probationary period for failure to qualify as a regular member of petitioner's teaching staff in accordance with its reasonable standards. Records showed deficiencies in classroom management, teacher-student relationship, and teaching techniques. Article 281 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code explicitly recognizes failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer as a just cause for termination of a probationary employee. The Court clarified that a probationary employment is a trial period to observe the employee's fitness, and the employer has the right to set standards and terminate employment if these are not met. The Court rejected the NLRC's reasoning that a six-month probationary employment is a definite period requiring the employer to exhaust the entire term, stating that the essence of probation lies in its purpose, not its length. The termination was predicated on a just cause, negating the application of the pronouncement on security of tenure in such cases. The Court found no circumvention of private respondent's rights, as she was duly notified of her termination for failure to meet standards, and the dismissal was not arbitrary, fanciful, or whimsical. The dissatisfaction of the employer over the performance was a legitimate exercise of its prerogative. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC: The Court held that it was a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC to order petitioner to pay private respondent her salary for the unexpired three-month portion of her six-month probationary employment when she was validly terminated during that period. To sanction such an action would be unjust and oppressive to the employer. The Court reiterated the principle of equality of rights between employer and employee, emphasizing that an employer cannot be compelled to give work against its will. The termination was based on valid grounds made known to the employee, and thus, the NLRC's order was contrary to law and jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
A probationary employee may be terminated during the probationary period for failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer, and such termination does not entitle the employee to salary for the unexpired portion of the probationary employment.