Philippine Spring Water Resources V

Philippine Spring Water Resources v.
Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 205278, 11 June 2014.
FACTS: Petitioner Philippine Spring Water Resources, Inc. (PSWRI), engaged in the
business of manufacturing, selling and distributing bottled mineral water, hired
Mahilum as Vice-President for Sales and Marketing for the Bulacan-South Luzon
Area. In an inagural speech supposedly headed by Mahilum. Mahilum was required to
explain why Lua, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), to Bulacan plant, was
not recognized and made to deliver his speech. At the same time, he was placed under
preventive suspension for thirty (30) days.
When his 30-day suspension ended, Mahilum reported for work but was
prevented from entering the workplace. Sometime in the first week of March 2005, he
received a copy of the Memorandum, dated January 31, 2005, terminating his services
effective the next day or on February 1, 2005. On February 9, 2005, a clearance
certificate was issued to Mahilum.
Mahilum filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement,
payment of back wages and damages. He argued that he was illegally suspended and,
thereafter, dismissed constructively from the service. He also claimed that he was
forced to sign the waiver.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mahilum was a regular employees and was illegally
dismissed from the service.
RULING:Mahilum is a contractual employee and the period of probation depended

on the stipulation of the Memorandum of Agreement entered into by the parties.
Mahilum was a regular employee having been hired in June 2004, he must be
considered to have already served the company for eight (8) months at the time of his
dismissal on February 1, 2005. This fact calls for the application of Article 281 of the
Labor Code:
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.
A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys security of tenure. In

cases of probationary employment, however, aside from just or authorized causes of
termination, an additional ground is provided under Article 281 of the Labor Code,
that is, the probationary employee may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a
regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the
employer to the employee at the time of the engagement. Thus, the services of an
employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated for any of
the following: (1) a just or (2) an authorized cause and (3) when he fails to qualify as
a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the
employer
As applied to the petitioner’s arguments, it would seem that PSWRI and Lua now
invoke the first and third ground for Mahilum’s termination. The Court, however,
cannot subscribe to the premise that Mahilum failed to qualify as a regular employee
when he failed to perform at par with the standards made known by the company to
him. In this case, it is clear that the primary cause of Mahilum’s dismissal from his
employment was borne out of his alleged lapses as chairman for the inauguration of
the Bulacan plant company’s Christmas party. In fact, the termination letter to him
cited "loss of trust and confidence" as a ground for his dismissal. Under the
circumstances, the petitioners may not be permitted to belatedly harp on its choice not
to extend his alleged probationary status to regular employment as a ground for his
dismissal. Besides, having been allowed to work after the lapse of the probationary
period, Mahilum became a regular employee. He was hired in June 2004 and was
dismissed on February 5,2005. Thus, he served the company for eight (8) months.

Philippine Spring Water Resources V

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Spring Water Resources V

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Spring Water Resources V

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Spring Water Resources v.

RULING:Mahilum is a contractual employee and the period of probation depended

A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys security of tenure. In

You might also like