INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION vs NLRC
(Definition of Probation)
FACTS
Petitioner ICMC is a non-profit organization dedicated to refugee service at the Philippine Refugee Processing Center in Morong,
Bataan. It engaged the services of private respondent Bernadette Galang on 1/24/1983 as a probationary cultural orientation
teacher. After 3 months, she was informed orally and in writing that her services were being terminated because she failed in the
performance evaluation of her supervisors during the teacher evaluation program.
On 8/22/1983, Galang filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and unpaid wages against petitioner with the
then Ministry of Labor and Employment, praying for reinstatement with backwages, exemplary and moral damages.
On 10/8/1983, Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal as well as the complaint for moral and exemplary
damages but ordering the ICMC to pay Galang the sum of P6,000.00 as payment for the last 3 months of the agreed
employment period pursuant to her verbal contract of employment.
Both parties appealed the decision to the NLRC. On 8/22/1985, the NLRC, by a majority vote of Commissioners Guillermo C.
Medina and Gabriel M. Gatchalian, sustained the decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed both appeals for lack of merit.
Dissatisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not an employee who was terminated during the probationary period of her employment is entitled to her salary for
the unexpired portion of her six-month probationary employment
RULING
NO. Galang was terminated during her probationary period of employment for failure to qualify as a regular member of
petitioner’s teaching staff in accordance with its reasonable standards. Galang was found by petitioner to be deficient in
classroom management, teacher-student relationship and teaching techniques. Failure to qualify as a regular employee in
accordance with the reasonable standards of the employer is a just cause for terminating a probationary employee specifically
recognized under Article 282 (now Article 281) of the Labor Code.
The labor arbiter’s decision is erroneous. The award of salary for the unexpired portion of the probationary employment on the
ground that a probationary employment for 6 months is an employment for a "definite period" which requires the employer to
exhaust the entire probationary period to give the employee the opportunity to meet the required standards.
A probationary employee is one who is on trial by an employer during which the employer determines whether or not he is
qualified for permanent employment. A probationary appointment is made to afford the employer an opportunity to observe the
fitness of a probationer while at work, and to ascertain whether he will become a proper and efficient employee. The word
“probationary,” as used to describe the period of employment, implies the purpose of the term or period, but not its length.
Being in the nature of a “trial period” the essence of a probationary period of employment fundamentally lies in the purpose or
objective sought to be attained by both the employer and the employee during said period. The length of time is immaterial in
determining the correlative rights of both in dealing with each other during said period.
It is within the exercise of the right to select his employees that the employer may set or fix a probationary period within which the
latter may test and observe the conduct of the former before hiring him permanently. As the law now stands, Article 281 of the
Labor Code gives ample authority to the employer to terminate a probationary employee 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. Nothing would preclude the employer from extending a regular or a permanent appointment to an
employee once the employer finds that the employee is qualified for regular employment even before the expiration of the
probationary period.
There was no showing, as borne out by the records, that there was circumvention of the rights of Galang when she was informed
of her termination. Her dismissal does not appear to us as arbitrary, fanciful or whimsical. She was duly notified, orally and in
writing, that her services were terminated for failure to meet the prescribed standards of petitioner as reflected in the
performance evaluation conducted by her supervisors during the teacher evaluating program. The dissatisfaction of petitioner
over the performance of private respondent in this regard is a legitimate exercise of its prerogative to select whom to hire or
refuse employment for the success of its program or undertaking.
The lower court abused its discretion when it ordered ICMC to Galang her salary for the unexpired three-month portion of her six-
month probationary employment when she was validly terminated during her probationary employment. To sanction such action
would not only be unjust, but oppressive on the part of the employer.
DISPOSITION: The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the NLRC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as it ordered
petitioner to pay private respondent her P6,000.00 salary for the unexpired portion of her six-month probationary employment.
No cost.
