G.R. No. 149859; June 9, 2004
Radin C. Alcira, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Middleby Philippines Corporation, Frank Thomas, Xavier G. Peña and Trifona F. Mamaradlo, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Radin Alcira was hired by respondent Middleby Philippines Corporation as an engineering support services supervisor on a probationary basis for six months. The parties presented conflicting appointment papers indicating different starting dates: May 20, 1996 per Alcira and May 27, 1996 per Middleby. Both documents stated his status as “probationary (6 mos.)” and noted that his performance would be evaluated after five months. On November 20, 1996, a senior officer withheld Alcira’s time card and prevented him from working. Alcira filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, asserting he had become a regular employee as his probation allegedly ended on November 16, 1996, counting six months from May 20.
Respondents contended that Alcira was terminated for failing to meet company standards during his probation, citing poor performance, ten absences, several tardiness incidents, and violations of uniform rules. They maintained his dismissal occurred before the expiration of his probationary period. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the termination occurred before regularization, a decision affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether petitioner was illegally dismissed after attaining regular status, or whether his probationary contract merely expired.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that petitioner was not illegally dismissed. The legal logic proceeds from Article 281 of the Labor Code. First, the Court held that Alcira did not become a regular employee. His contract explicitly stated a six-month probationary period. The reference to a five-month evaluation pertained only to a salary review, not a shortening of the probation term. His employment ended on the last day of this six-month period.
Second, the Court found that the employer made known the reasonable standards for regularization. The appointment contract’s provision for a performance evaluation after five months inherently implied that such evaluation would be against known job standards. This was corroborated by an affidavit detailing Alcira’s failure to meet company standards.
Third, the constitutional protection of security of tenure for probationary employees ends upon the expiration of the probationary contract. Following Manlimos vs. NLRC, the employer is free not to renew the contract at that point. While Alcira’s severance was a dismissal, it was not illegal because it occurred at the contract’s expiry, and the employer was justified based on his documented poor performance, absences, tardiness, and rule violations. Thus, there was no illegal dismissal but a lawful non-renewal following an expired probationary period.