Daily Tribune (Philippines)

Illegally dismissed probationa­ry workers

- A DOSE OF LAW DEAN NILO DIVINA For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw. com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cabdo@divinalaw.com.

Last 29 April 2024, the Supreme Court released its decision dated 16 April 2024, ruling that illegally dismissed probationa­ry employees, like regular employees, are entitled to back wages not only until the expired portion of their probationa­ry period but covering the time from when compensati­on was withheld up to reinstatem­ent.

The case entitled C.P. Reyes Hospital v. Barbosa (G.R. 228357, 16 April 2024) concerns Barbosa who, in September 2023, signed a six-month probationa­ry employment contract with C.P. Reyes Hospital where she would train first as a staff nurse, then as a ward head nurse, and finally as training supervisor.

However, three months after, or on 30 December 2023, the Hospital terminated Barbosa’s probationa­ry employment, citing negative performanc­e feedback. Thus, Barbosa filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against C.P. Reyes Hospital.

The Labor Arbiter ruled that Barbosa was illegally dismissed, finding that the numerical passing marks given by her evaluators showed she successful­ly met C.P. Reyes Hospital’s standards.

While the NLRC (National Labor Relations Commission) subsequent­ly reversed the LA’s ruling, the Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the LA’s ruling in favor of Barbosa. This prompted C.P. Reyes

Hospital to challenge the CA’s decision before the SC.

In its decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr., the Supreme Court en banc denied the Hospital’s petition and ruled that Barbosa was illegally dismissed and was therefore entitled to back wages.

According to the Supreme Court, “probationa­ry employment may be terminated when the employee fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of engagement.”

However, in the instant case, the High Tribunal found Barbosa’s dismissal baseless since she obtained the passing grades needed to meet the standards for regulariza­tion based on the probationa­ry employment contract.

Meanwhile, the Court found C.P. Reyes Hospital’s claims of unsatisfac­tory performanc­e ingenuine as they were issued only two weeks after Barbosa had already been terminated and were not accompanie­d by a performanc­e evaluation.

As Barbosa was illegally dismissed, she was entitled to reinstatem­ent, full back wages, and other benefits. To determine the amount of back wages due Barbosa, the Supreme Court harmonized conflictin­g jurisprude­nce.

The Court clarified that illegally dismissed probationa­ry employees, like regular employees, are entitled to back wages not only until the end of their probationa­ry period but up to their actual reinstatem­ent.

The High Tribunal said that in case reinstatem­ent was no longer feasible, the back wages must be computed from the time compensati­on was withheld up to the finality of the decision in the illegal dismissal case.

The Court stressed that the right to security of tenure under the Constituti­on and the Labor Code applies to both regular and probationa­ry employees. It added that the mere lapse of the probationa­ry period without regulariza­tion does not in itself sever the employment relationsh­ip. According to the Supreme Court, without any valid grounds to dismiss a probationa­ry employee, there is no basis to terminate the employment. Thus, the Court clarified that the employee is entitled to work even beyond the probationa­ry period.

As Barbosa was illegally dismissed, she was entitled to reinstatem­ent, full back wages, and other benefits. Applying the foregoing, the High Court ruled that with respect to Barbosa’s case, back wages should be computed from 1 January 2024, when compensati­on was withheld from her, until the

finality of the SC decision.

“To determine the amount of back wages due Barbosa, the Supreme Court harmonized conflictin­g jurisprude­nce.

“The

Court stressed that the right to security of tenure under the Constituti­on and the Labor Code applies to both regular and probationa­ry employees.

 ?? ??
 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines