G.R. No. 157607 ; July 7, 2009
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. ROWENA O. PADEN, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Rowena O. Paden was hired by petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines as a probationary employee for the position of Executive Assistant I. As a condition for assuming the post pending completion of her background check, she executed an affidavit waiving her right to the position should derogatory information be later discovered. In her submitted bio-data, she indicated she had no children and listed Cyril Rose O. Paden as her sister. The subsequent background investigation revealed that Cyril Rose was, in fact, her daughter. Paden submitted an explanatory affidavit, but the Bank, citing the findings, notified her that she would be dropped from the rolls effective at the end of her probationary period. The notice did not state any specific cause for the termination.
Paden appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which initially dismissed her appeal for being filed out of time and for non-payment of fees. Upon reconsideration, the CSC gave due course to the appeal, ultimately ruling in her favor and ordering her reinstatement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s decision. The Land Bank elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the termination of respondent Paden from her probationary employment was valid.

RULING

No, the termination was invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the CSC and the Court of Appeals, ruling that Paden was illegally dismissed. The Court clarified that while a probationary employee may be dismissed for a just cause or for failing to qualify as a permanent employee, such dismissal must comply with both substantive and procedural due process. Substantively, the employer must prove that the dismissal was for a valid and authorized cause. Procedurally, the employee must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.
In this case, the Bank failed on both counts. Substantively, it did not adequately prove that Paden’s misrepresentation in her personal data sheet—stating her daughter as her sister—constituted dishonesty grave enough to disqualify her from permanent employment, especially considering her subsequent explanation and the lack of proof that the misrepresentation was willful to secure her appointment. More critically, the Bank failed procedurally. The notice of termination merely stated she was being dropped upon the expiration of her probationary period without citing any specific ground. This deprived her of the opportunity to adequately prepare a defense and contest the basis for her dismissal. The termination, therefore, was effected without due process of law.