Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dusit Hotel V Gatbonton Case 119
Dusit Hotel V Gatbonton Case 119
Dusit Hotel V Gatbonton Case 119
FACTS:
The hotel alleged that at the end of the probation period, Ingo Rauber, Director
of its Food and Beverage Department, observed that Gatbonton failed to meet the
qualification standards for Chief Steward, and Rauber recommended a two-month
extension of Gatbonton’s probationary period, or until April 22, 1999. At the end of
the 4th month, on March 24, 1999, Rauber informed Gatbonton that the latter had
poor ratings on staff supervision, productivity, quantity of work, and overall efficiency
and did not qualify as Chief Steward. Gatbonton requested another month or until
April 22, 1999 to improve his performance, to which Rauber agreed but allegedly
refused to sign the Performance Evaluation Form. Neither did he sign the
Memorandum on the extension.
HELD:
The SC held that as Article 281 clearly states, a probationary employee can be
legally terminated either: (1) for a just cause; or (2) when the employee fails to
qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards made
known to him by the employer at the start of the employment. Nonetheless, the
power of the employer to terminate an employee on probation is not without
limitations. First, this power must be exercised in accordance with the specific
requirements of the contract. Second, the dissatisfaction on the part of the employer
must be real and in good faith, not feigned so as to circumvent the contract or the
law; and third, there must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal. In
termination cases, the burden of proving just or valid cause for dismissing an
employee rests on the employer.
Here, the petitioner did not present proof that the respondent was evaluated
from November 21, 1998 to February 21, 1999, nor that his probationary employment
was validly extended. The petitioner alleged that at the end of the respondent’s three-
month probationary employment, Rauber recommended that the period be extended
for two months since respondent Gatbonton was not yet ready for regular
employment. The petitioner presented a Personnel Action Form containing the
recommendation. We observed, however, that this document was prepared on March
31, 1999, the end of the 4th month of the respondent’s employment. In fact, the
recommended action was termination of probationary employment effective April 9,
1999, and not extension of probation period. Upon appeal to the NLRC, the petitioner
presented another Personnel Action Form prepared on March 2, 1999, showing that
the respondent’s probationary employment was extended for two months effective
February 23, 1999.
The Personnel Action Form dated March 2, 1999, contained the following
remarks: “subject to undergo extension of probation for two (2) months as per
attached memo.” Yet, we find this document inconclusive. First, the action form did
not contain the results of the respondent’s evaluation. Without the evaluation, the
action form had no basis. Second, the action form spoke of an attached memo which
the petitioner identified as Rauber’s Memorandum, recommending the extension of
the respondent’s probation period for two months. Again, the supposed Memorandum
was not presented. Third, the action form did not bear the respondent’s signature.
Since respondent was not dismissed for a just or authorized cause, his dismissal
was illegal, and he is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and
other privileges as well as to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other
benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was
withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
Petition is denied.