Probationary Employees Security of Tenure
Do probationary employees have security of tenure?
In the case of Agoy vs. National Labor Relations Commission (G.R. No. 112096, January 30, 1996), the Supreme Court held that probationary employees, notwithstanding their limited tenure, are also entitled to security of tenure. A probationary employee may be terminated on two grounds: (a) for just cause or (b) 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. A digest of the case is presented below:
FACTS: Petitioner applied for overseas employment as civil engineer with private respondent and was subsequently accepted to work in Saudi Arabia. Petitioner was deployed as "Road Foreman" and not as "CE/Road Engineer" as initially agreed upon. Left with no other choice, petitioner accepted the position and started to work.
Petitioner was later asked by private respondent to sign a new contract at a reduced salary or suffer termination and repatriation. Petitioner's refusal to sign the new contract resulted in his termination from employment. Petitioner then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal after he was repatriated to the Philippines.
Respondent agency maintained that petitioner was not illegally dismissed and that the latter made no objection to his dismissal as evidenced by the Final Settlement that he executed and the Letter of Termination to which he affixed his signature.
POEA dismissed petitioner's complaint after finding that the evidence on record clearly indicated that petitioner himself voluntarily consented to his termination and repatriation. NLRC reversed the decision of the POEA. However, upon motions for reconsideration filed by petitioner and the private respondent, the NLRC set aside its decision and held in favor of private respondents. NLRC found that petitioner failed to meet respondent employer's standard during the probationary period thereby leading to his dismissal. NLRC also discarded petitioner's allegation that he was merely forced to agree to his dismissal as the record is bereft of any evidence of force and intimidation perpetrated by respondent employer.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed?
In the case of Agoy vs. National Labor Relations Commission (G.R. No. 112096, January 30, 1996), the Supreme Court held that probationary employees, notwithstanding their limited tenure, are also entitled to security of tenure. A probationary employee may be terminated on two grounds: (a) for just cause or (b) 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. A digest of the case is presented below:
FACTS: Petitioner applied for overseas employment as civil engineer with private respondent and was subsequently accepted to work in Saudi Arabia. Petitioner was deployed as "Road Foreman" and not as "CE/Road Engineer" as initially agreed upon. Left with no other choice, petitioner accepted the position and started to work.
Petitioner was later asked by private respondent to sign a new contract at a reduced salary or suffer termination and repatriation. Petitioner's refusal to sign the new contract resulted in his termination from employment. Petitioner then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal after he was repatriated to the Philippines.
Respondent agency maintained that petitioner was not illegally dismissed and that the latter made no objection to his dismissal as evidenced by the Final Settlement that he executed and the Letter of Termination to which he affixed his signature.
POEA dismissed petitioner's complaint after finding that the evidence on record clearly indicated that petitioner himself voluntarily consented to his termination and repatriation. NLRC reversed the decision of the POEA. However, upon motions for reconsideration filed by petitioner and the private respondent, the NLRC set aside its decision and held in favor of private respondents. NLRC found that petitioner failed to meet respondent employer's standard during the probationary period thereby leading to his dismissal. NLRC also discarded petitioner's allegation that he was merely forced to agree to his dismissal as the record is bereft of any evidence of force and intimidation perpetrated by respondent employer.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed?
HELD: Yes. Probationary employees, notwithstanding their limited tenure, are also entitled to security of tenure. A probationary employee may be terminated on two grounds: (a) for just cause or (b) 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.
Respondents' attempt to justify petitioner's dismissal based on the aforequoted second ground is unwarranted. The record is bereft of any evidence to show that respondent employer ever conveyed to petitioner-employee the standards or requirements that he must comply with in order to become a regular employee. In fact, petitioner has consistently denied that he was even given the chance to qualify for the position for which he was contracted.
Neither do we subscribe to the conclusion that petitioner voluntarily consented to his dismissal despite his signature in the letter of termination. In our jurisprudence, quitclaims, waivers or releases are looked upon with disfavor, particularly those executed by employees who are inveigled or pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking to evade their legal responsibilities. The fact that petitioner signed his notice of termination and failed to make any outright objection thereto did not altogether mean voluntariness on his part. Neither did the execution a of a final settlement and receipt of the amounts agreed upon foreclose his right to pursue a legitimate claim for illegal dismissal.
Comments