G.R. Nos. 249351-52. March 29, 2022
EDNA LUISA B. SIMON, PETITIONER, VS. THE RESULTS COMPANIES AND JOSELITO SUMCAD, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Edna Luisa B. Simon filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, nonpayment of separation pay, discrimination, and damages against The Results Companies (Results), a BPO firm, and Joselito Sumcad. She alleged she was hired as a Customer Service Representative on October 6, 2012, and was forced to resign on December 13, 2012, submitting her ID and payslips as proof. Results initially denied her employment due to lack of records, attributing this to her short stint and the complaint being filed four years later. It argued she could not have been terminated as a two-month probationary period was insufficient for assessment, suggesting she voluntarily resigned or went AWOL. The Labor Arbiter ruled she was illegally dismissed as a probationary employee, entitled to backwages only for the remaining probationary period, but found her monetary claims prescribed. The NLRC affirmed she was an illegally dismissed probationary employee but adjusted her backwages rate. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding she was a regular employee because her job was necessary to Results’ business and she was not informed of regularization standards. However, the CA held she failed to prove dismissal, ordered her reinstatement without backwages, and maintained the status quo.

ISSUE

Whether the CA erred in declaring that petitioner was a regular employee of Results and that she was illegally dismissed from employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s finding that petitioner was a regular employee but modified the ruling regarding dismissal. The Court held that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling petitioner was a probationary employee. Under labor laws, for an employee to be considered probationary, the employer must communicate the reasonable standards for regularization at the time of engagement. Results, having admitted petitioner was its probationary employee, failed to present any evidence or even allege that it informed her of such standards. Consequently, petitioner was deemed a regular employee. On the issue of dismissal, the Court found that petitioner’s act of filing the complaint itself constituted an overt act indicating her dismissal, as she would not have filed it without cause. Results’ claim of resignation or abandonment was unsubstantiated. Thus, petitioner was illegally dismissed. As a regular employee illegally dismissed, she is entitled to full backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to strained relations, and attorney’s fees. The prescriptive period for monetary claims was deemed interrupted by the filing of the illegal dismissal complaint.