Case Digest: Mylene Carvajal vs.

Luzon Development Bank and/or Oscar

Ramirez

G.R. No. 186169 01 August 2012

FACTS:

Carvajal was employed as a trainee-teller by Luzon Development Bank (Bank) under a

six-month probationary employment contract. Ramirez is the President and CEO of the
Bank. A month into her employment, she was send a Memorandum directing her to
explain in writing why she should not be subjected to disciplinary action for her eight
tardiness on November 2003. A second Memorandum was sent to her on January for
her again chronic tardiness on December 2003. She submitted her written explanations
for both events and manifested her acceptance of the consequences of her actions. She
was terminated for three days effective 21 January 2004. However, on 22 January, her
termination was lifted but at the same time, her services were terminated. In the
respondents position paper to the LA, they explained that the reasons for her absence
are chronic tardiness, absenteeism and failure to perform satisfactorily as a
probationary employee.

LA Decision: The petitioner was illegally dismissed because she was not afforded the
notice in writing informing her of what the Bank would like to bring out to her for the
latter to answer in writing.

NLRC Decision: NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA.

CA Decision: The CA found that the petitioner was not entitled to backwages because
she was rightfully dismissed for failure to meet the employment standards.

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner can be considered a regular employee at the time of her
dismissal.

HELD:

No. Carvajals appointment letter reads that Possible extension of this contract will
depend on the job requirements of the Bank and your overall performance.
Performance review will be conducted before possible renewal can take effect.
Therefore, petitioner knew, at the time of her engagement, that she must comply with
the standards set forth by respondent and perform satisfactorily in order to attain
regular status. Even the NLRC upheld the petitoners probationary status, stating that
reinstatement is not synonymous to regularization.

Although probationary employees also enjoy security of tenure, he may still be

terminated because of just and authorized causes of termination and the additional
ground under Article 281 of the Labor Code, i.e. the probationary employee may also be
terminated for failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance to the reasonable
standards set by the employer. Punctuality is a reasonable standard imposed on every
employee, whether in government or private sector. This, together with absenteeism,
underperformance and mistake in clearing a check are infractions that cannot be
tantamount to satisfactory standards.

In addition to the abovementioned, it has been previously held in PDI vs. Magtibay, Jr.,
that the second requirement under Article 281 does not require notice and hearing. Due
process of law for this second ground consists of making the reasonable standards
expected of the employee during his probationary period known to him at the time of his
engagement. By the very nature of probationary employment, the employee knows from
the very start that he will be under close observation and continuous scrutiny by his
supervisors. If termination is for cause, it may be done at anytime during the
probation.