GR 185829; (April, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 185829 ; April 25, 2012
ARMANDO ALILING, Petitioner, vs. JOSE B. FELICIANO, MANUEL F. SAN MATEO III, JOSEPH R. LARIOSA, and WIDE WIDE WORLD EXPRESS CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Armando Aliling was hired by respondent Wide Wide World Express Corporation (WWWEC) as a probationary Account Executive. His employment contract stipulated that conversion to regular status would be based on work performance. Shortly after training, his assignment was changed to handle a new domestic cargo product. In a July 2004 email, Sales Director Manuel San Mateo expressed dissatisfaction, stating an expectation that the service shuttles be “80% full by the 3rd week” after launch. In September 2004, Aliling was asked to explain alleged absences and later tendered a resignation, which he subsequently claimed was forced. WWWEC did not act on the resignation but later terminated his services in October 2004 due to “non-satisfactory performance” during his probationary period. Aliling filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the termination of petitioner’s probationary employment was valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the termination was valid. The legal logic centers on the requirements for dismissing a probationary employee under Article 281 of the Labor Code. The Court found that the employer made known the reasonable standards for regularization at the time of engagement through the June 2, 2004 offer letter, the June 11, 2004 employment contract, and a separate letter of appointment signed the same day. These documents collectively established that confirmation was contingent upon work performance, with a specific performance review on the fifth month. The Court held that the standard of achieving an 80% load factor for the new service, communicated via the July email, was a valid, concrete performance indicator derived from the general “work performance” standard initially set. Since Aliling failed to meet this reasonable performance standard, his dismissal for failure to qualify as a regular employee was justified. The Court further found no evidence that his resignation was forced, noting his initial tender was unacted upon and the subsequent termination was based on a valid cause.