G.R. No. 192571 , April 22, 2014.
Abbott Laboratories, Philippines, Cecille A. Terrible, Edwin D. Feist, Maria Olivia T. Yabut-Misa, Teresita C. Bernardo, and Allan G. Almazar, Petitioners, vs. Pearlie Ann F. Alcaraz, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Pearlie Ann Alcaraz was hired by Abbott Laboratories, Philippines as a Regulatory Affairs Manager on a probationary status for six months. Her employment was terminated before the end of the probationary period. Alcaraz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming she was a regular employee from the start. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, finding her a probationary employee whose termination was valid. The Court of Appeals (CA) granted Alcaraz’s petition for certiorari, finding the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by ruling she was a probationary employee, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The Supreme Court, in its initial Decision dated July 23, 2013, reversed the CA and upheld the NLRC’s finding that Alcaraz was a probationary employee validly terminated for failing to meet performance standards. Alcaraz filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE

The primary issue for reconsideration is whether the Supreme Court erred in its initial ruling by: (1) conducting a re-weighing of evidence in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45; and (2) ruling that the adequate performance of one’s duties and responsibilities, once made known, constitutes an inherent and implied standard for regularization of a probationary employee.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed its Decision.
1. On the manner of review, the Court held it did not improperly re-weigh facts. The Court’s review was confined to determining whether the CA correctly found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court found the NLRC did commit grave abuse by arbitrarily disregarding the legal implications of attendant circumstances which showed Alcaraz was well-apprised of her duties, responsibilities, and probationary status. The Court’s analysis of the NLRC’s interpretation of labor law principles is complementary to a Rule 45 review. The Court based its conclusion on settled factual findings, not a new factual appellate review.
2. On the standards for regularization, the Court clarified that it is not the job description itself, but the adequate performance of the duties and responsibilities which constitutes the inherent and implied standard for regularization. Once a probationary employee is fully informed of these duties and responsibilities, basic knowledge dictates they must be adequately performed. The determination of “adequate performance” is not always quantifiable and may rest on the employer’s reasonable qualitative assessment, especially for positions involving discretion, such as managerial roles like Alcaraz’s. The communication of standards must be perceived within the context of the nature of the employee’s duties.
The Court detailed the circumstances showing Alcaraz was informed: (a) newspaper publication of the job description; (b) offer sheet stating probationary status; (c) signed employment contract specifying a 6-month probation; (d) receipt of organizational structure and job description via email; (e) pre-employment orientation; (f) required training program; (g) receipt and explanation of the Code of Conduct and Performance Modules; and (h) her extensive prior training and background in the pharmaceutical industry. Her failure to adequately perform her duties justified her non-regularization.