THE petitioner Maria Carmela P. Umali filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against the respondent Hobbywing Solutions Inc.
The records of the case show that the petitioner started working for the respondent on June 19, 2012 as a probationary employee and there were two employment contracts signed by the parties. The petitioner is claiming that there was no contract before the commencement of her employment and that she was only asked to sign two employment contracts on Jan. 19, 2013, after having rendered seven months of service.
The respondent, on the other hand, maintains that there was a contract of probationary employment signed at the beginning of the petitioner’s service and another one signed on Nov. 18, 2012 extending the probationary period, purportedly to give petitioner a chance to improve her performance and qualify for regular employment.
Which position finds merit?
Ruling: That of the petitioner.
The CA, however, believes that the probationary period of employment was validly extended citing Mariwasa vs. Leogardo, 251 Phil. 417 (1989).
x x x.
The mentioned case, however, finds no application in the instant case for two reasons: (1) there was no evaluation upon the expiration of the period of probationary employment; (2) the supposed extension of the probationary period was made after the lapse of the original period agreed by the parties. Based on the evidence on record, the respondent only evaluated the performance of the petitioner for the period of June 2012 to November 2013 on February 1, 2013, wherein she garnered a rating of 88.3%, which translates to a satisfactory performance according to company standards. At the time of the evaluation, the original period of probationary employment had already lapsed on November 18, 2012 and the petitioner was allowed to continuously render service without being advised that she failed to qualify for regular employment. Clearly then, there is no reason to justify the extension since the petitioner had a commendable rating and, apart from this, there is no more period to be extended since the probationary period had already lapsed.
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.
x x x
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 will be taken against the employer, especially since it thwarts the attainment of a fundamental right--that is, security of tenure.
In the instant case, there was no valid extension of the probationary period since the same had lapsed long before the company thought of extending the same. More significantly, there is no justifiable reason for the extension since, on the basis of the performance evaluation dated Feb. 1, 2013, the petitioner had a commendable performance all throughout the probationary period.
Having rendered service even after the lapse of the probationary period, the petitioner had attained regular employment, with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. Clothed with security of tenure, she may not be terminated from employment without just or authorized cause and without the benefit of procedural due process. Since the petitioner’s case lacks both, she is entitled to reinstatement with payment of full backwages, as correctly held by the NLRC. (Maria Carmela P. Umali vs. Hobbywing Solutions, Inc., G.R. No. 221356, March 14, 2018).