Univac Development, Inc. v. Soriano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent William M. Soriano was hired by petitioner Univac Development, Inc. on a probationary basis as a legal assistant. Eight days before the completion of his six-month probationary period, Soriano was informed by his supervisor that his employment was being terminated due to cost-cutting measures. Soriano claimed he was dismissed immediately, while Univac contended that Soriano had expressed his intention to leave to prepare for the bar examinations and that his performance was unsatisfactory, thus he abandoned his job. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter dismissed Soriano's complaint for illegal dismissal, finding that while he was entitled to eight days' backwages, his claim of constructive dismissal did not align with the facts. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, holding that Univac had validly exercised its management prerogative in terminating Soriano's probationary employment due to unsatisfactory performance. Soriano's motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, Soriano filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The Court of Appeals granted Soriano's petition, nullifying the NLRC resolutions and ordering Univac to pay backwages, separation pay, and attorney's fees, finding that Soriano was illegally dismissed. Univac filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the CA erred in granting the petition despite the NLRC ruling having attained finality, that the CA exceeded the scope of certiorari review, and that the CA committed errors of law by reversing the NLRC's findings despite substantial evidence and failing to consider Univac's rehabilitation status.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the petition for certiorari despite the alleged finality of the NLRC rulings. Whether the Court of Appeals exceeded the scope of certiorari under Rule 65 by reviewing the factual findings of the NLRC. Whether respondent William M. Soriano was illegally dismissed from employment, specifically addressing the claims of abandonment vs. actual dismissal. Whether the CA erred in ruling on actual dismissal when the claim was constructive dismissal (addressed within the illegal dismissal issue). Whether the CA erred in reversing the NLRC's findings despite substantial evidence. Whether the case should be suspended due to rehabilitation proceedings.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals Decision dated October 24, 2007, and Resolution dated March 14, 2008, are affirmed with modification. Petitioner Univac Development, Inc. is ordered to pay respondent William M. Soriano backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, attorney's fees, and legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the CA's review of NLRC decisions via certiorari and the finality of NLRC rulings: The Court reiterated that the Court of Appeals has the power to review NLRC decisions through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. This power includes passing upon the evidence to resolve factual issues when the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that while NLRC decisions become final and executory, the adverse party is not precluded from assailing the decision via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA. On the scope of certiorari under Rule 65: The CA is empowered to evaluate evidence to determine if the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding no illegal dismissal. Therefore, the CA did not err in reviewing the NLRC's findings, as it is within its expanded judicial review powers to prevent a substantial wrong or to arrive at a just decision. On the issue of illegal dismissal and the claim of abandonment vs. actual dismissal: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that respondent was illegally dismissed. Under Article 281 of the Labor Code, probationary employment can be terminated only for a just cause or failure to qualify as a regular employee based on reasonable standards. The employer must apprise the employee of these standards and show proof of performance evaluation. Petitioner failed to present adequate evidence that respondent was apprised of the standards for regularization or that his performance was evaluated as unsatisfactory. The Court agreed with the CA that petitioner failed to substantiate its claim of abandonment. The CA's finding that petitioner hired another person to replace respondent on the day of the alleged abandonment further negated the claim of abandonment. On the CA's ruling on actual dismissal: The Court clarified that the CA's ruling on actual dismissal was a consequence of the finding that the termination was without just or valid ground and due process was not observed, making the dismissal illegal, regardless of whether the initial claim was framed as constructive dismissal. On the CA's reversal of the NLRC's findings: The reliance by the LA and NLRC on the respondent's educational background was deemed mere surmises and presumptions, justifying the CA's reversal. On the rehabilitation proceedings: The Court took judicial notice that petitioner's petition for rehabilitation was dismissed by this Court in a separate case. Therefore, petitioner could not rely on any stay orders issued by the rehabilitation court.
Main Doctrine
An employer's failure to apprise a probationary employee of the reasonable standards for regularization and to show proof of performance evaluation based on such standards renders the termination illegal, effectively making the employee a regular employee from the start.