G.R. No. 164635 November 17, 2005
MAJURINE L. MAURICIO, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Majurine L. Mauricio was hired as a probationary Administrative Assistant by respondent Manila Banking Corporation. A pre-employment requirement was the submission of a clearance from her previous employer, Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation (MBLIC), a sister company. Despite being given an extension until December 15, 1999, and a final deadline of December 29, 1999, petitioner failed to submit the clearance. She explained she could not secure it due to a pending case against her at MBLIC and requested that action on her employment be held in abeyance.
The bank denied her request, citing its standing policy that submission of such clearance prior to the expiration of the probationary period was mandatory, especially for bank officers. It terminated her employment effective December 29, 1999, for failure to comply. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling the requirement was reasonable. The NLRC initially reversed this, ordering reinstatement with backwages and damages, but upon reconsideration, vacated its decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s final decision.

ISSUE

Whether the termination of petitioner’s probationary employment for failure to submit a clearance from her previous employer constitutes a valid dismissal.

RULING

Yes, the termination was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the nature of probationary employment and management prerogative. A probationary employee may be dismissed for failure to meet the reasonable standards made known at the time of engagement. The requirement of a clearance from a previous employer is a reasonable company policy, particularly in the banking industry where integrity and a clean record are paramount.
Petitioner was expressly informed of this requirement and given ample opportunity, including extensions, to comply. Her failure to submit the clearance by the final deadline constituted a failure to qualify for regular employment as per the bank’s known standards. The bank’s refusal to further extend the deadline or hold her employment in abeyance was a valid exercise of management prerogative to enforce its hiring policies. The Court found no abuse of discretion, as the requirement was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, but a legitimate exercise of the employer’s right to ensure the qualifications and character of its prospective regular employees.