UMALI v. HOBBYWING SOLUTIONS, INC., G.R. No. 221356, | 2018

828 Phil. 320 (Full text Click here)

G.R. No. 221356. March 14, 2018 
MARIA CARMELA P. UMALI, PETITIONER, 

VS. 

HOBBYWING SOLUTIONS, INC., RESPONDENT.

Ponente: REYES, JR., J:

Nature of Petition: 

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision[1] dated May 29, 2015 and Resolution[2] dated November 4, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA­ G.R. SP No. 136194.

Dispositive portion:

The Court therefore finds it proper to reinstate the decision of the NLRC which ruled that the petitioner was illegally dismissed and held her entitled to the twin relief of reinstatement and backwages.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated May 29, 2015 and Resolution dated November 4, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136194 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated January 15, 2014 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR Case No. 04-06101-13 is REINSTATED.

Doctrines:

It is an elementary rule in the law on labor relations that a probationary employee engaged to work beyond the probationary period of six months, as provided under Article 281 of the Labor Code, or for any length of time set forth by the employer (in this case, three months), shall be considered a regular employee. This is clear in the last sentence of Article 281. Any circumvention of this provision would put to naught the State's avowed protection for labor.

It bears stressing that while in a few instances the Court recognized as valid the extension of the probationary period, still the general rule remains that an employee who was suffered to work for more than the legal period of six (6) months of probationary employment or less shall, by operation of law, become a regular employee. In Buiser vs. Leogardo, the Court stated, thus:

Generally, the probationary period of employment is limited to six (6) months. The exception to this general rule is when the parties to an employment contract may agree otherwise, such as when the same is established by company policy or when the same is required by the nature of work to be performed by the employee.

Since extension of the period is the exception, rather than the rule, the employer has the burden of proof to show that the extension is warranted and not simply a stratagem to preclude the worker's attainment of regular status. Without a valid ground, any extension of the probationary period shall be taken against the employer especially since it thwarts the attainment of a fundamental right, that is, security of tenure.

Synopsis:

In the case of Maria Carmela P. Umali v. Hobbywing Solutions, Inc., the petitioner alleged that she was hired as a Pitboss Supervisor by the respondent, an online casino gaming establishment, on June 19, 2012. However, she never signed any employment contract before the commencement of her service but regularly received her salary every month. She was later asked to sign two employment contracts in January 2013, for a period of five months and three months, respectively. On February 18, 2013, the petitioner was informed that her employment had ended, and she was asked to wait for advice whether she would be rehired or regularized. She was no longer allowed to work thereafter, leading to the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal against the respondent.

The respondent claimed that the engagement of the petitioner's service as a probationary employee and the extension of the period of probation were both covered by separate employment contracts duly signed by the parties. After receiving a commendable rating by the end of the extended probationary period, the petitioner was advised that the company would be retaining her services as Pitboss Supervisor. However, she declined the offer for the reason that a fellow employee, her best friend, would not be retained by the company. She processed her exit clearance to clear herself of any accountability and for the purpose of processing her remaining claims from the company.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) held that the petitioner was illegally dismissed, and the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision of the NLRC. The Supreme Court, however, ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the significant details left unexplained by the respondent only validated the petitioner's claim that she had served way beyond the allowable period for probationary employment and therefore had attained the status of regular employment. The petitioner commenced working for the respondent on June 19, 2012, until February 18, 2013. By that time, she had already become a regular employee, which accorded her protection from arbitrary termination. The employer had the burden of proof to show that the employee was indeed a probationary employee and that the period of probation was validly extended. Since the respondent failed to discharge this burden, the petitioner's dismissal was considered illegal.

ISSUE: WON respondent was illegally dismissed. - YES