G.R. No. 132564 October 20, 1999
SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Third Division, Q.C. and PRISCILA ENDOZO, respondents.

FACTS

In June 1993, respondent Priscila Endozo applied with petitioner Sameer Overseas Employment Agency for overseas employment in Taiwan as a domestic helper. On April 6, 1994, petitioner required her to pay P30,000.00, which she paid without receiving a receipt. On April 8, 1994, she left for Taiwan under a one-year contract with employer Sung Kui Mei, with a monthly salary of NT$13,380.00. Her employment was terminated after only eleven (11) days, and she was sent back to the Philippines on April 19, 1994, for alleged incompetence. Upon her return, an agency representative told her she was unlucky and promised a refund. On June 20, 1995, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other claims with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, which was later transferred to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) due to the enactment of Republic Act No. 8042 . The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal and ordered petitioner to pay her salary for the unexpired portion of her contract (11 months and 19 days) amounting to NT$151,996.60, plus attorney’s fees. The NLRC affirmed this decision in toto. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the employer in Taiwan could lawfully terminate private respondent’s employment as a domestic helper for incompetence during the probationary period of her employment.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC resolution. The Court held that even a probationary employee is entitled to security of tenure and can only be terminated for just cause or if the employee fails to qualify as a regular employee according to reasonable standards made known at the time of engagement. The employment contract, which included a six-month probationary period, allowed termination during probation for “being found losing ability to work.” However, the employer’s power to terminate is limited: it must comply with the contract’s specific requirements, the dissatisfaction must be real and in good faith, and there must be no unlawful discrimination. In termination cases, the burden of proving just cause rests on the employer. Petitioner failed to present convincing proof of respondent’s alleged incompetence. Furthermore, reasonable standards for qualification must be made known to the probationary employee at engagement, which was not established. Therefore, the termination was unjustified and illegal. Consequently, respondent is entitled to payment of her salaries for the unexpired portion of her one-year contract.