G.R. No. 186169; August 1, 2012
Mylene Carvajal, Petitioner, vs. Luzon Development Bank and/or Oscar Z. Ramirez, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Mylene Carvajal was hired as a probationary trainee-teller by respondent Luzon Development Bank. During her probation, she was repeatedly cited for chronic tardiness. The bank issued her memoranda in December 2003 and January 2004, requiring her to explain her tardiness on multiple dates. She submitted written explanations and apologies. Following a disciplinary process, she was suspended for three days. Subsequently, her employment was terminated on January 23, 2004, prior to the end of her six-month probationary contract. The bank cited grounds of chronic tardiness, unauthorized absence, and unsatisfactory performance, the latter evidenced by a low performance evaluation rating.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, finding the dismissal illegal due to lack of due process and holding that unsatisfactory performance was not a valid ground to terminate a probationary contract prematurely. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed but modified the award to full backwages until actual reinstatement. The Court of Appeals reversed these rulings, dismissing the complaint. It held the dismissal was valid due to petitioner’s failure to meet reasonable performance standards during probation.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the termination of a probationary employee for failure to meet prescribed reasonable performance standards constitutes a valid dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, upholding the validity of the dismissal. The legal logic centers on the nature of probationary employment. A probationary employee may be dismissed for a just cause, such as failure to comply with reasonable performance standards made known at the time of engagement. The Court found the bank had clearly communicated its standards through company rules and the employment contract. Petitioner’s chronic tardiness and absenteeism, which she admitted, constituted valid grounds for disciplinary action under these standards.
Crucially, the bank also established that petitioner failed to meet the general standard of satisfactory performance required for regularization. Her low performance evaluation rating of 2.17 (with 4 as highest) objectively demonstrated this failure. The termination was not a dismissal for cause in the punitive sense but a result of her failure to qualify as a regular employee. The Court emphasized that an employer has the right to determine whether a probationer meets its standards. As the dismissal was based on a lawful, non-discriminatory ground, and considering the procedural infirmities were subsequently cured, the termination was valid. Consequently, she was not entitled to reinstatement or backwages.