Philippine Daily Inquirer Inc. vs. Leon M. Magtibay Jr.

and Philippine Daily Inquirer Employees

Union (PDIEU)

Garcia, J. GR No. 164532 – 24 July 2007

Facts:

Leonardo Magtibay was hired on a contractual basis by the Philippine Daily Inquirer for a period of
5 months. Before the expiration of the said contract, they agreed to extend it for another 15 days. After
Magtibay’s contractual employment expired, PDI then announced that they created an available position
for a second telephone operator, who will undergo a probationary employment. Since it was a practice of
PDI to give preference to its regular employees for vacancies, Ms. Regina Layague, a regular employee
and a member of the Philippine Daily Inquirer Employees Union (PDIEU), applied for the said available
position but later withdrew his application prompting Magtibay to apply for the same.

PDI then hired Magtibay on a probationary basis for a period of 6 months. A week prior to the expiration
of the 6 month probationary period, Magtibay was handed his termination paper for alleged failure to meet
company standards. For such, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages before the Labor
Arbiter.

PDIEU later joined the case by filing a supplemental complaint for unfair labor practice. The Labor Arbiter
ruled in favor of PDI. The Labor Arbiter, in ruling in favor of PDI relied on the abstract language provided
for in the termination paper which stated that: “you did not meet the standards of the company”, to wit:
(1) he repeatedly violated the company rule prohibiting unauthorized persons from entering the telephone
operators room; (2) he intentionally omitted to indicate in his application form his having a dependent
child; and (3) he exhibited lack of sense of responsibility by locking the door of the telephone operators
room on March 10, 1996 without switching the proper lines to the company guards so that incoming calls
may be answered by them. However, on appeal to the NLRC, it ruled in favor of Magtibay which prompted
PDI to file with it a motion for reconsideration which NLRC denied. PDI then went to CA via a petition for
certiorari. The CA denied due course on PDI’s petition. Hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not Magtibay was illegally dismissed?

Held:

No. A probationary employee’s services, under Art. 281 of the Labor Code, may be terminated 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. In this case, it is undisputed that Magtibay was
duly apprised of the employment standards expected of him at the time of his probationary employment
when he underwent a one-on-one orientation with PDIs personnel assistant, Ms. Rachel Isip-Cuzio.
Neither has he denied nor rebutted PDIs further claim that his direct superior, Benita del Rosario, briefed
him regarding his responsibilities in PDI. Yet, despite of that, he still did not meet the standards of the
company for the reasons earlier found by the Labor Arbiter. Hence, he was not illegally dismissed.

Doctrine: Art. 281. 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.