Facts:
In June 2004, Abbott Laboratories, Philippines (Abbott) advertised for the position of a Medical and Regulatory Affairs Manager. Pearlie Ann F. Alcaraz, then a Regulatory Affairs and Information Manager at Aventis Pasteur Philippines, applied for the position and was formally offered the job by Abbott on December 7, 2004, on a probationary basis. She accepted the offer, and her employment contract stated a probation period of six months starting February 15, 2005. Throughout her employment, Alcaraz was briefed about her responsibilities, received Abbott’s Code of Conduct, and was informed about the performance evaluation process for probationary employees. She was tasked with evaluating the staff’s performance and ensuring compliance with Abbott’s policies.
However, her management style was considered “too strict” by some, including her immediate supervisor, Kelly Walsh. Alcaraz approached HR Director Maria Olivia T. Yabut-Misa with her Concerns but was advised to “lie low.” On April 12, 2005, she was asked to submit staff performance evaluations, which she did. However, on May 16, 2005, she was informed in a meeting with Walsh and Terrible that she failed to meet the regularization standards and was asked to resign or face termination. She was then barred from entering the company premises and, on May 23, 2005, was formally handed her termination letter, citing failure in time and people management and decision-making skills as reasons for her dismissal.
Alcaraz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against Abbott and its officers, claiming she was not informed of the reasonable standards for her regularization at the time of her engagement. The Labor Arbiter dismissed her complaint for lack of merit, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding her dismissal illegal and ordering her reinstatement with backwages and damages.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s decision, stating Alcaraz was not apprised of the reasonable standards for regularization. Following a series of legal maneuvers related to execution pending appeal, the CA issued resolutions denying Abbott’s petitions, thereby leading to Abbott’s petition for review at the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioners are guilty of forum-shopping.
2. Whether Alcaraz was sufficiently informed of reasonable standards for her regularization.
3. Whether Alcaraz’s termination was valid.
4. Liability of individual petitioners.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA’s decision and effectively reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision but modified to order Abbott to pay Alcaraz nominal damages for procedural breach. It held:
1. No forum-shopping occurred as the matters covered in subsequent petitions were distinct.
2. Alcaraz was a probationary employee, adequately informed of her duties and the performance standards implicit in her role.
3. Abbott’s failure to follow its performance evaluation process did not amount to illegal dismissal but resulted in procedural infirmity, warranting nominal damages.
4. There was no bad faith or malice on the part of individual petitioners in terminating Alcaraz’s employment, absolving them from liability for moral and exemplary damages.
Doctrine:
A probationary employee is deemed regular if not informed of the standards for regularization at the time of engagement. However, the inherent requirements of a job can constitute reasonable performance standards. The employer’s failure to observe its procedural policies in evaluating probationary employees may not necessarily amount to illegal dismissal but may constitute procedural infirmity warranting nominal damages.
Class Notes:
– Employees’ Rights to Security of Tenure: Both regular and probationary employees are protected, with dismissals requiring just cause and adherence to procedural due process.
– Probationary Employment Criteria: Employers must clearly communicate performance standards at the time of engagement for probationary employment to be valid.
– Remedies for Illegal Dismissal: Includes reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, back wages, and potentially separation pay, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees depending on the circumstances of the dismissal.
Historical Background:
The case underscores the complexities surrounding probationary employment in the Philippines, emphasizing the rights of employees to be properly informed of the standards for their regularization. It illustrates the judiciary’s role in balancing employers’ prerogatives with protecting workers’ rights, within the context of evolving labor laws and practices in the Philippines.
Leave a Reply