G.R. No. 192881; November 16, 2011
TAMSON’S ENTERPRISES, INC., NELSON LEE, LILIBETH ONG and JOHNSON NG, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ROSEMARIE L. SY, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Rosemarie L. Sy was hired by petitioner Tamson’s Enterprises, Inc. on September 1, 2006 as “Assistant to the President” but was directed to work as a payroll clerk. On February 24, 2007, four days before completing her six-month probationary period, she was informed by petitioners Johnson Ng and Nelson Lee that her services were terminated due to inefficiency. She was asked to sign a resignation letter and quitclaim and was told not to report for work. She claimed she was not shown any evaluation report and was humiliated by co-petitioner Lilibeth Ong on her last day. Petitioners asserted she was a probationary employee hired for six months, subject to regularization upon meeting company standards, and was informed on February 1, 2007 that her employment would end on February 28, 2007 for failing to meet those standards. Sy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims. The Executive Labor Arbiter (ELA) ruled in Sy’s favor, finding termination without just cause and due process. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the ELA, holding that failure to qualify for regular employment is a just cause for terminating a probationary employee and that Sy was notified one month in advance. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC, reinstating the ELA’s decision, ruling that Sy was not informed of the standards for regularization at the time of her engagement, making her a regular employee from day one, and that her dismissal was without due process.

ISSUE

Whether the termination of respondent Rosemarie L. Sy, a probationary employee, was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision. The termination was illegal.
The Court held that for a probationary employment to be valid, the employee must be informed of the reasonable standards for regularization at the time of engagement. Citing Alcira v. NLRC and Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Paranaque City, Inc., the Court ruled that failure to do so renders the employee a regular employee from the start. The petitioners failed to prove that Sy was apprised of such standards. The mere claim that her continued employment depended on her “over-all performance” was too general and did not constitute the reasonable standards required by law.
Furthermore, the Court found that Sy’s dismissal was without due process. As a probationary employee who must be dismissed for a just cause (i.e., failure to meet standards), she was entitled to the twin requirements of notice and hearing. The petitioners did not comply with this; they merely informed her of her termination and asked for her resignation. The termination, effected barely four days before her probationary period ended, was suspicious and arbitrary.
Consequently, Sy, deemed a regular employee, was illegally dismissed. The Court affirmed the CA decision reinstating the ELA’s award of reinstatement, full backwages, prorated 13th month pay, unpaid salaries, and attorney’s fees.