G.R. No. 148931 ; September 12, 2006
CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LIMITED, petitioner, vs. PHILIP LUIS F. MARIN and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Philip Luis F. Marin was hired by petitioner Cathay Pacific Airways as a Reservations Officer under a six-month probationary period starting April 6, 1992. His appointment letter stated that his services could be terminated during probation if his performance proved unsatisfactory. On October 2, 1992, Marin received two letters from the Country Manager: one accepting his purported resignation and another terminating his services effective the next day due to unsatisfactory performance. Marin denied resigning and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing he was never informed of the reasonable performance standards he needed to meet to qualify as a regular employee.
Cathay Pacific contended that Marin’s performance was below standard, as shown by staff assessments, and that he committed infractions like making personal calls and being noisy. The company claimed he was briefed on the rules and expectations. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC dismissed Marin’s complaint, ruling his termination was valid. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the dismissal illegal because Cathay failed to prove it made the reasonable standards for regularization known to Marin at the time of his engagement.

ISSUE

Whether the termination of Marin’s probationary employment was valid.

RULING

No, the termination was illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. For a valid termination of a probationary employee for failure to meet standards, the employer must prove two things: that the employee was apprised of such reasonable standards at the time of engagement, and that the employee failed to meet them. The legal logic is rooted in the principle of security of tenure, which extends to probationary employees. They can only be dismissed for just cause or failure to qualify as a regular employee according to standards made known to them.
Here, Cathay Pacific failed to discharge its burden of proof. The appointment letter merely stated performance must be “satisfactory” but did not specify the concrete, reasonable standards against which Marin would be evaluated. Testimonies from Cathay’s own witnesses were inconsistent on when and how these standards were communicated. The alleged infractions and performance assessments were insufficient to justify termination because the fundamental prerequisite—clear communication of standards at the start of employment—was not established. Consequently, Marin was deemed to have been regularly employed from day one, making his dismissal without just or authorized cause illegal. He was thus entitled to reinstatement and full backwages.