G.R. No. 182072; June 19, 2013
UNIVAC DEVELOPMENT, INC., Petitioner, vs. WILLIAM M. SORIANO, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent William M. Soriano was hired by petitioner Univac Development, Inc. on a six-month probationary basis as a legal assistant. He alleged that eight days before the completion of his probationary period, he was informed of his termination due to company cost-cutting measures and was ordered to leave immediately. Univac countered that Soriano had expressed an intention to leave to review for the bar exams and was informed of his unsatisfactory performance. The company claimed he abandoned his job when he failed to report for work.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Soriano’s complaint for illegal dismissal, a decision affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Both found that Soriano, given his educational background, was presumed to know the standards for regularization and that Univac validly exercised management prerogative in terminating his probationary employment. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, ruling that Soriano was illegally dismissed. The CA found Univac failed to prove it informed Soriano of the regularization standards, failed to show a valid evaluation of his performance, and that its act of hiring a replacement negated its claim of abandonment.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent William M. Soriano was illegally dismissed from his probationary employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The legal logic centers on the employer’s twin obligations in terminating a probationary employee. First, the employer must prove it communicated the reasonable performance standards for regularization to the employee at the start of the probation. Second, it must show a valid dismissal for a just or authorized cause, which includes the employee’s failure to meet those communicated standards.
Here, Univac failed to discharge both burdens. It did not present concrete evidence, such as written guidelines or a signed acknowledgment, to prove Soriano was apprised of the specific standards for regularization. Mere allegations of informing him during a meeting are insufficient. Furthermore, Univac’s claim of unsatisfactory performance was not substantiated by any documented performance evaluation conducted prior to termination. The termination, occurring just days before the probationary period ended, appeared arbitrary. The claim of abandonment was also untenable, as abandonment requires a clear, deliberate intent to sever employment, which Univac failed to prove, especially given its immediate hiring of a replacement. Consequently, Soriano’s dismissal was illegal, entitling him to backwages and separation pay.