Dear Atty. Nico,

I was hired on 25 February 2017 by a manning agency and was assigned to a hotel in Parañaque where I worked as a Front Office Supervisor on a probationary status. On 5 July 2017, I was told to report for office earlier than usual. Eventually, I received a “Notice of Pull Out” effective 13 July 2017, stating that I did not meet the standard performance evaluation and thus will be placed on floating status. At the time of my engagement, I was not informed of the standards required to qualify as a regular employee; my employment contract only stipulated the “duties and responsibilities”. Do I have a valid case of illegal dismissal against my manning agency, et al.?

Cynthia

□□□□□

Dear Cynthia,

Yes. You have a valid case of illegal dismissal against the respondents.

In the case of Sagarino vs Toplis Solutions Inc., the Court held that “security of tenure is enjoyed even by employees on probation, thus, while they do not enjoy permanent status, they cannot be removed from their positions, during the period of their probation, unless for just or authorized causes, or if they fail to qualify in accordance with reasonable standards made known by their employers at the time of the engagement.”

A probationary employee is one who is placed on trial by an employer, during which the latter determines whether or not the former is qualified for permanent employment.

It is primordial that at the start of the probationary period, the standards for regularization be made known to the probationary employee. In the case of Sameer Overseas Placement Agency Inc. vs Cabiles, the Court explained that “due process requires that the probationary employee be informed of such standards at the time of his or her engagement so he or she can adjust his or her character or workmanship accordingly.”

Applying the same in your situation, your employer erred in not providing you the reasonable standards for regularization. The mere inclusions of your “duties and responsibilities” as a Front Office Supervisor in your employment contract is not sufficient. There should have been clear and reasonable standards upon which regularization was contingent.

Atty. Nico A. Antonio