Lucero v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Gallardo U. Lucero was initially hired by Excellent Manpower Services, a third-party agency supplying personnel to Philippine National Bank (PNB). Subsequently, PNB extended Lucero an original and permanent appointment as Liaison Officer 1. Shortly thereafter, PNB management approved the termination of Lucero's services due to an unsatisfactory performance rating during his probationary period. 2. Procedural History: Lucero protested his dismissal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which initially referred the matter to PNB. Upon learning that PNB was privatized before his complaint was filed, the CSC considered the matter closed. Lucero then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter, who dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that Lucero was a government employee at the time of dismissal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this, finding Lucero was illegally dismissed and ordering his reinstatement with backwages. PNB petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari, arguing the NLRC gravely abused its discretion. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, reversing the NLRC and dismissing Lucero's complaint. 3. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner Lucero argues that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to recognize that he had attained regular employee status at the time of his dismissal and that his subsequent high performance rating should have been considered in his favor.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to hold that petitioner was already a regular employee at the time of his dismissal and hence could not be dismissed without just or authorized cause based on unsatisfactory performance during his probationary period. Whether the Court of Appeals legally erred in not holding that petitioner's subsequently high performance rating should have been taken in his favor, despite the crucial evaluation period being the probationary period.
Ruling
The petition lacks merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, dismissing Gallardo U. Lucero's complaint for illegal dismissal against the Philippine National Bank.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of probationary employment and dismissal for unsatisfactory performance: The Court held that petitioner Lucero was appointed to a permanent status as Liaison Officer I on December 6, 1995, which, under Civil Service rules applicable at the time of his appointment, subjected him to a probationary period of six months. During this period, an employee may be dropped from the service for unsatisfactory conduct or want of capacity. The Court found that PNB validly exercised its prerogative to terminate Lucero's probationary employment for unsatisfactory performance, as evidenced by the consistent negative feedback and unsatisfactory ratings from his immediate superiors. The Court emphasized that whether the performance was satisfactory or unsatisfactory is a factual question best left to the appellate court, whose findings, if supported by substantial evidence, are binding on the Supreme Court. The memoranda from Ubaldo L. Laranang, Norma P. Perez, and Roger V. Estanislao detailed Lucero's negative attitude, willful neglect of duties, irresponsible ways, ignored reminders, lack of improvement, poor performance, misconduct, and untoward behavior, all contributing to an "unsatisfactory" rating. The Court reiterated that a probationary appointment is intended to allow the employer to observe the probationer's skill, competence, and attitude, and in Lucero's case, he proved unworthy of permanent employment. On the issue of subsequent high performance rating: The Court found it difficult to sustain petitioner's stand that the Court of Appeals erred in ignoring his subsequently high performance rating. The Court clarified that the "very satisfactory" rating obtained by petitioner after his reinstatement, pursuant to the NLRC order, was not controlling because the crucial period for evaluation was his performance during the probationary period of his employment, not after his dismissal and subsequent reinstatement.
Main Doctrine
The termination of a probationary employee due to unsatisfactory performance, when supported by substantial evidence and conducted in accordance with probationary period rules, is valid, even if the employer is subsequently privatized.