G.R. No. 235794 , May 12, 2021
Karen G. Jaso, Petitioner, vs. Metrobank & Trust Co., Rowena B. De Grano, Vivian Lee-Tiu, Maria Zarah C. Hernandez, and Fabian S. Dee, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Karen G. Jaso was hired by respondent Metrobank & Trust Co. as a Management Trainee on July 16, 2012, under a probationary employment. Metrobank informed her that to qualify for regularization, she needed to achieve an overall performance rating of at least 3.0. She was furnished with and signed documents outlining these standards, including a Performance Appraisal Management System Sheet, an Orientation Checklist, and Key Result Areas. She also attended orientation seminars where the criteria were discussed. Her performance from July to December 2012 was assessed, resulting in an overall rating of 2.21, classified as “Below Meets Standard.” Her Core Competency Assessment also indicated she lacked the necessary skills and attitude. Additionally, Metrobank alleged she displayed improper behavior during a meeting on December 17, 2012. On January 2, 2013, she was issued a Show Cause Order for Gross and habitual negligence, Unprofessional behavior, and Unauthorized absences/Non-disclosure/Dishonesty. After she submitted an explanation, Metrobank terminated her probationary employment effective January 15, 2013. Jaso filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, finding she became a regular employee on December 16, 2012 (six months from her start date), and her subsequent termination was illegal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA, ruling her probationary period validly ended on January 17, 2013 (computing the period by excluding the first day), and her termination for failure to meet reasonable standards was valid. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Karen G. Jaso was illegally dismissed from her probationary employment.

RULING

No, the petitioner was not illegally dismissed. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the rulings of the NLRC and CA. The Court held that:
1. The probationary period was validly computed. Applying Article 13 of the Civil Code, the six-month probationary period commenced on July 16, 2012, and ended on January 17, 2013 (excluding the first day, including the last day). Therefore, her employment status was still probationary when she was evaluated and terminated in January 2013.
2. The employer made known the reasonable standards for regularization at the time of engagement. Metrobank exerted reasonable efforts to apprise Jaso of the performance standards through signed documents and orientation seminars. The standard of achieving a rating of at least 3.0 was clearly communicated.
3. The termination was for a valid cause. Jaso failed to qualify as a regular employee as she received a final performance rating of 2.21, which was “Below Meets Standard.” Her failure to meet the known reasonable standards constituted a just cause for termination under Article 296 (formerly 281) of the Labor Code.
4. Due process was observed. She was given a Show Cause Order and an opportunity to explain her side before the termination was effected.
Consequently, her dismissal from probationary employment was valid.