GR 150660; (July, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150660 ; July 30, 2002
CALS POULTRY SUPPLY CORPORATION and DANILO YAP, petitioners, vs. ALFREDO ROCO and CANDELARIA ROCO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners CALS Poultry Supply Corporation and its manager Danilo Yap sought reconsideration of a minute resolution denying their petition, which challenged a Court of Appeals decision reversing the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Respondents Alfredo Roco and his sister Candelaria Roco filed complaints for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages. Alfredo, a driver hired in 1984, claimed he was dismissed on January 20, 1996, after refusing a monetary offer in exchange for a voluntary resignation. Candelaria, hired as a probationary helper on May 16, 1995, alleged she was terminated without cause on November 15, 1995. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints, finding that Alfredo abandoned his work after an approved leave and failed to respond to a return-to-work notice, while Candelaria was validly terminated during her probationary period for being unsuited for the job. The NLRC affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
The core issues were whether Alfredo Roco was illegally dismissed or had abandoned his employment, and whether Candelaria Roco was validly terminated as a probationary employee or had attained regular status.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC. On the first issue, the Court found that Alfredo Roco failed to substantiate his claim of illegal dismissal. The employer presented evidence that Alfredo did not report back after his leave and ignored a formal inquiry letter, which constituted overt acts of abandonment. The burden of proof in termination cases lies with the employer to show just cause, and here, CALS successfully demonstrated Alfredo’s deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume work, negating his claim of dismissal. His subsequent filing of a complaint did not automatically negate abandonment, as the employer had already established the factual basis for it.
Regarding Candelaria Roco, the Court held her termination was valid and within her probationary period. Applying the computation method from Cebu Royal v. Deputy Minister of Labor, the six-month probationary period is reckoned from the date of hire, May 16, 1995, and ends on the same calendar date of the sixth month, which was November 16, 1995. Her termination on November 15, 1995, fell exactly on the last day of this period, not after its expiration. Therefore, she had not attained regular employee status and could be lawfully terminated based on the employer’s assessment of her unsuitability during probation, without the requirement of a prior hearing or just cause applicable to regular employees. The Court of Appeals erred in its computation of the probationary period.