Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 103 views

    Hello

    Uploaded by

    Hans Chavez
    Leonardo Magtibay was hired on a contractual basis by the Philippine Daily Inquirer that was later extended, and then hired on a probationary basis for six months as a telephone operator. A week before the end of the probationary period, Magtibay was terminated allegedly for failure to meet company standards. Magtibay filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, finding that Magtibay was informed of employment standards and did not meet them. The NLRC ruled in favor of Magtibay, but the CA denied certiorari. The Supreme Court affirmed the Labor Arbiter's ruling, finding that as a probationary employee, Magtibay

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hello

    Uploaded by

    Hans Chavez
    103 views1 page
    Leonardo Magtibay was hired on a contractual basis by the Philippine Daily Inquirer that was later extended, and then hired on a probationary basis for six months as a telephone operator. A week before the end of the probationary period, Magtibay was terminated allegedly for failure to meet company standards. Magtibay filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, finding that Magtibay was informed of employment standards and did not meet them. The NLRC ruled in favor of Magtibay, but the CA denied certiorari. The Supreme Court affirmed the Labor Arbiter's ruling, finding that as a probationary employee, Magtibay

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    hello.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Leonardo Magtibay was hired on a contractual basis by the Philippine Daily Inquirer that was later extended, and then hired on a probationary basis for six months as a telephone operator. A week before the end of the probationary period, Magtibay was terminated allegedly for failure to meet company standards. Magtibay filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, finding that Magtibay was informed of employment standards and did not meet them. The NLRC ruled in favor of Magtibay, but the CA denied certiorari. The Supreme Court affirmed the Labor Arbiter's ruling, finding that as a probationary employee, Magtibay

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    103 views1 page

    Hello

    Uploaded by

    Hans Chavez
    Leonardo Magtibay was hired on a contractual basis by the Philippine Daily Inquirer that was later extended, and then hired on a probationary basis for six months as a telephone operator. A week before the end of the probationary period, Magtibay was terminated allegedly for failure to meet company standards. Magtibay filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, finding that Magtibay was informed of employment standards and did not meet them. The NLRC ruled in favor of Magtibay, but the CA denied certiorari. The Supreme Court affirmed the Labor Arbiter's ruling, finding that as a probationary employee, Magtibay

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Philippine Daily Inquirer Inc. vs. Leon M. Magtibay Jr.

    and Philippine Daily Inquirer Employees


    Union (PDIEU)

    Garcia, J. GR No. 164532 – 24 July 2007

    Facts:

    Leonardo Magtibay was hired on a contractual basis by the Philippine Daily Inquirer for a period of
    5 months. Before the expiration of the said contract, they agreed to extend it for another 15 days. After
    Magtibay’s contractual employment expired, PDI then announced that they created an available position
    for a second telephone operator, who will undergo a probationary employment. Since it was a practice of
    PDI to give preference to its regular employees for vacancies, Ms. Regina Layague, a regular employee
    and a member of the Philippine Daily Inquirer Employees Union (PDIEU), applied for the said available
    position but later withdrew his application prompting Magtibay to apply for the same.

    PDI then hired Magtibay on a probationary basis for a period of 6 months. A week prior to the expiration
    of the 6 month probationary period, Magtibay was handed his termination paper for alleged failure to meet
    company standards. For such, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages before the Labor
    Arbiter.

    PDIEU later joined the case by filing a supplemental complaint for unfair labor practice. The Labor Arbiter
    ruled in favor of PDI. The Labor Arbiter, in ruling in favor of PDI relied on the abstract language provided
    for in the termination paper which stated that: “you did not meet the standards of the company”, to wit:
    (1) he repeatedly violated the company rule prohibiting unauthorized persons from entering the telephone
    operators room; (2) he intentionally omitted to indicate in his application form his having a dependent
    child; and (3) he exhibited lack of sense of responsibility by locking the door of the telephone operators
    room on March 10, 1996 without switching the proper lines to the company guards so that incoming calls
    may be answered by them. However, on appeal to the NLRC, it ruled in favor of Magtibay which prompted
    PDI to file with it a motion for reconsideration which NLRC denied. PDI then went to CA via a petition for
    certiorari. The CA denied due course on PDI’s petition. Hence this appeal.

    Issue: Whether or not Magtibay was illegally dismissed?

    Held:

    No. A probationary employee’s services, under Art. 281 of the Labor Code, may be terminated 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. In this case, it is undisputed that Magtibay was
    duly apprised of the employment standards expected of him at the time of his probationary employment
    when he underwent a one-on-one orientation with PDIs personnel assistant, Ms. Rachel Isip-Cuzio.
    Neither has he denied nor rebutted PDIs further claim that his direct superior, Benita del Rosario, briefed
    him regarding his responsibilities in PDI. Yet, despite of that, he still did not meet the standards of the
    company for the reasons earlier found by the Labor Arbiter. Hence, he was not illegally dismissed.

    Doctrine: Art. 281. 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.

    You might also like