The essence of a probationary period of employment fundamentally lies in the purpose or objective of both the employer and the employee during the period. While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment, the latter seeks to prove to the former that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for permanent employment.[33]
The “trial period” or the length of time the probationary employee remains on probation depends on the parties’ agreement, but it shall not exceed six (6) months under Article 281 of the Labor Code, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. Article 281 provides:
Probationary employment. — Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.
As the Court explained in International Catholic Migration Commission, “the word ‘probationary,’ as used to describe the period of employment, implies the purpose of the term or period, but not its length.”[34] Thus, the fact that Dalangin was separated from the service after only about four weeks does not necessarily mean that his separation from the service is without basis.
Contrary to the CA’s conclusions, we find substantial evidence indicating that the company was justified in terminating Dalangin’s employment, however brief it had been. Time and again, we have emphasized that substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[35]
Dalangin overlooks the fact, wittingly or unwittingly, that he offered glimpses of his own behavior and actuations during his four-week stay with the company; he betrayed his negative attitude and regard for the company, his co-employees and his work.
Dalangin admitted in compulsory arbitration that the proximate cause for his dismissal was his refusal to attend the company’s “Values Formation Seminar” scheduled for October 27, 2001, a Saturday. He refused to attend the seminar after he learned that it had no relation to his duties, as he claimed, and that he had to leave at
The “Values Formation Seminar” incident is an eye-opener on the kind of person and employee Dalangin was. His refusal to attend the seminar brings into focus and validates what was wrong with him, as Abad narrated in her affidavit[36] and as reflected in the termination of employment memorandum.[37] It highlights his lack of interest in familiarizing himself with the company’s objectives and policies. Significantly, the seminar involved acquainting and updating the employees with the company’s policies and objectives. Had he attended the seminar, Dalangin could have broadened his awareness of the company’s policies, in addition to Abad’s briefing him about the company’s policies on punctuality and attendance, and the procedures to be followed in handling the clients’ applications. No wonder the company charged him with obstinacy.
The incident also reveals Dalangin’s lack of interest in establishing good working relationship with his co-employees, especially the rank and file; he did not want to join them because of his view that the seminar was not relevant to his position and duties. It also betrays an arrogant and condescending attitude on his part towards his co-employees, and a lack of support for the company objective that company managers be examples to the rank and file employees.
Additionally, very early in his employment, Dalangin exhibited negative working habits, particularly with respect to the one hour lunch break policy of the company and the observance of the company’s working hours. Thus, Abad stated that Dalangin would take prolonged lunch breaks or would go out of the office – without leave of the company – only to call the personnel manager later to inform the latter that he would be unable to return as he had to attend to personal matters. Without expressly countering or denying Abad’s statement, Dalangin dismissed the charge for the company’s failure to produce his daily time record.[38]
The same thing is true with Dalangin’s handling of Tecson’s application for immigration to
In the face of Abad’s direct statements, as well as those of his co-employees, it is puzzling that Dalangin chose to be silent about the charges, other than saying that the company could not cite any policy he violated. All along, he had been complaining that he was not able to explain his side, yet from the labor arbiter’s level, all the way to this Court, he offered no satisfactory explanation of the charges. In this light, coupled with Dalangin’s adamant refusal to attend the company’s “Values Formation Seminar” and a similar program scheduled earlier, we find credence in the company’s submission that Dalangin was unfit to continue as its Immigration and Legal Manager. As we stressed earlier, we are convinced that the company had seen enough from Dalangin’s actuations, behavior and deportment during a four-week period to realize that Dalangin would be a liability rather than an asset to its operations.
We, therefore, disagree with the CA that the company could not have fully determined Dalangin’s performance barely one month into his employment. As we said inInternational Catholic Migration Commission, the probationary term or period denotes its purpose but not its length. To our mind, four weeks was enough for the company to assess Dalangin’s fitness for the job and he was found wanting. In separating Dalangin from the service before the situation got worse, we find the company not liable for illegal dismissal.
