G.R. No. 148738; June 29, 2004
MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. CHRYSLER PHILIPPINES LABOR UNION and NELSON PARAS, respondents.

FACTS

Nelson Paras was hired by Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation (MMPC) as a probationary manufacturing trainee on May 27, 1996. He was oriented on company rules and the standards for regularization. After six months, his immediate supervisors initially gave him an average rating, but a subsequent review by department managers resulted in a unanimous finding of unsatisfactory performance. Consequently, MMPC served Paras a Notice of Termination dated November 25, 1996, received on November 26, 1996, stating his services were terminated effective November 25 for failing to meet regularization standards.
The Chrysler Philippines Labor Union (CPLU) contested the dismissal, arguing Paras was terminated on his 183rd day, three days after the expiration of the six-month probationary period, thus rendering him a regular employee who could only be dismissed for just cause. They also alleged the dismissal was politically motivated due to a dispute involving Paras’s wife, a union president. The Voluntary Arbitrator upheld the dismissal, finding it valid and effected within the probationary period. The Court of Appeals reversed, declaring Paras a regular employee illegally dismissed and ordering his reinstatement with backwages.

ISSUE

Whether Nelson Paras was validly dismissed as a probationary employee who failed to meet company standards before the expiration of his probationary period.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals and REINSTATED the Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision, upholding the validity of the dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the proper computation of the probationary period and management prerogative. Article 281 of the Labor Code allows a probationary period not exceeding six months. Applying Article 13 of the Civil Code, six months is computed as 180 days. Paras’s employment from May 27, 1996, to November 25, 1996, when the notice was issued, spanned exactly 180 days, excluding the first day and including the last. Therefore, his termination was effected on the last day of the probationary period, not after its expiration.
The Court emphasized that an employer has the right to determine reasonable standards for regularization and to assess a probationary employee’s fitness. MMPC duly informed Paras of these standards at the onset. His failure to meet them, as conclusively found by management after review, constituted a valid ground for termination at the end of the probationary period. The allegation of union-related motivation was unsupported by evidence. Consequently, Paras was validly terminated as a probationary employee who did not qualify for regular status, and MMPC did not incur liability for illegal dismissal.