Understanding Security of Tenure for Probationary Employees in the Philippines

n

TLDR: Even probationary employees in the Philippines have the right to security of tenure and cannot be dismissed without just cause or failure to meet reasonable standards communicated to them at the start of employment. This Supreme Court case clarifies that employers bear the burden of proving a valid reason for terminating a probationary employee.

nn

G.R. No. 132564, October 20, 1999

nn

INTRODUCTION

n

Imagine leaving your home and family, full of hope for a better future, only to be sent back within days, jobless and disillusioned. This was the harsh reality for Priscila Endozo, a domestic helper who sought employment in Taiwan through Sameer Overseas Placement Agency. Her story, while unfortunately not unique, highlights a critical aspect of Philippine labor law: the rights of probationary employees, particularly overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), and the concept of security of tenure, even in the initial stages of employment. This case serves as a stark reminder that probationary employment is not a free pass for employers to terminate contracts at will. It underscores the importance of due process and just cause, principles deeply embedded in Philippine labor jurisprudence, protecting even those in probationary roles from unfair dismissal.

nn

LEGAL CONTEXT: PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT AND SECURITY OF TENURE IN THE PHILIPPINES

n

Philippine labor law recognizes the concept of probationary employment, allowing employers a trial period to assess an employee’s suitability for a permanent position. This probationary period, however, is not without limitations and employee protections. Article 281 of the Labor Code of the Philippines (now renumbered as Article 296 in the renumbered Labor Code under Republic Act No. 10151) governs probationary employment, stating:

n

“Probationary Employment. – 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.”

n

This provision clearly outlines two permissible grounds for terminating a probationary employee: (a) for just cause, or (b) failure to meet reasonable standards made known to the employee at the start of employment. Crucially, even during probation, an employee is entitled to security of tenure, albeit probationary in nature. This means employers cannot terminate probationary contracts arbitrarily or without a valid reason. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the employer bears the burden of proving that the termination was for a just cause or based on reasonable standards communicated to the employee. Failure to do so renders the dismissal illegal, entitling the employee to remedies under the law.

nn

CASE BREAKDOWN: ENDOZO’S UNJUST DISMISSAL

n

Priscila Endozo’s journey began in June 1993 when she applied to Sameer Overseas Placement Agency for a domestic helper position in Taiwan. After an initial health concern was addressed, she was assured of deployment in April 1994. The agency required her to pay P30,000, for which she received no receipt. On April 8, 1994, Endozo departed for Taiwan, contracted to work for Sung Kui Mei as a housemaid for one year, earning NT$13,380 monthly. Her contract included a six-month probationary period.

n

However, her overseas dream quickly turned sour. After only eleven days, her Taiwanese employer terminated her services, citing “incompetence” and sent her back to the Philippines on April 19, 1994.

n

Upon her return, Endozo sought help from Sameer Overseas Placement Agency. An agency representative, Rose Mahinay, reportedly dismissed her concerns as “bad luck” and promised a partial refund of P50,000, which was not the full amount she paid and did not address the loss of employment.

n

Feeling unjustly treated, Endozo filed a complaint on June 20, 1995, with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) against the agency. Her complaint cited illegal dismissal, illegal exaction, and contract violations, seeking payment for the unexpired portion of her contract, attorney’s fees, and costs.

n

With the passage of Republic Act No. 8042, jurisdiction over OFW claims shifted to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Endozo’s case was transferred to the NLRC Arbitration Branch in San Pablo City.

n

Procedural Steps:

n

n
1. Complaint Filing (POEA, then NLRC): Endozo initially filed with POEA, then case transferred to NLRC due to jurisdictional changes.

n

2. Labor Arbiter Level: Labor Arbiter Andres C. Zavalla ruled in Endozo’s favor on May 28, 1997, finding illegal dismissal and ordering payment of salary for the remaining contract period (11 months, 19 days) plus attorney’s fees.

n

3. NLRC Appeal: Sameer Agency appealed to the NLRC Third Division, Quezon City.

n

4. NLRC Decision: On November 28, 1997, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in toto.

n

5. Motion for Reconsideration: Agency’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC on January 28, 1998.

n

6. Supreme Court Petition (Certiorari): Sameer Agency then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, questioning the NLRC’s decision.

n

n

The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Pardo, upheld the NLRC’s ruling and dismissed the agency’s petition. The Court emphasized that even probationary employees have security of tenure and can only be terminated for just cause or failure to meet reasonable standards made known at the start of employment. The Court noted:

n

“It is an elementary rule in the law on labor relations that even a probationary employee is entitled to security of tenure. A probationary employee can not be terminated, except for cause.”

n

Furthermore, the Court pointed out the employer’s failure to substantiate the claim of incompetence. The decision highlighted the due process requirement, stating:

n

“Due process dictates that an employee be apprised beforehand of the conditions of his employment and of the terms of advancement therein. Precisely, implicit in Article 281 of the Code is the requirement that reasonable standards be previously made known by the employer to the probationary employee at the time of his engagement.”

n

Because Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to prove just cause for dismissal or that Endozo failed to meet communicated reasonable standards, the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of illegal dismissal and upheld the award of back wages for the unexpired portion of her contract and attorney’s fees.

nn

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES AND ENSURING FAIR LABOR PRACTICES

n

This case serves as a crucial precedent, reinforcing the rights of probationary employees in the Philippines, especially OFWs who are often vulnerable to exploitation. It clarifies that:

n

n
• Probationary employees are not without rights: They possess security of tenure and protection against arbitrary dismissal.

n

• Employers must have just cause or reasonable standards for termination: Vague reasons like