As probationary and contractual employees, private respondents enjoyed security of tenure, but only to a limited extent — i.e., they remained secure in their employment during the period of time their respective contracts of employment remained in effect. That temporary security of tenure, however, ended the moment their employment contracts expired and petitioners declined to renew the same for the next succeeding school year. Consequently, as petitioners were not under obligation to renew those contracts of employment, the separation of private respondents in this case cannot be said to have been without justifiable cause, much less illegal.
Probationary Employee Cases
Skillworld Management and Marketing Corp v NLRC, 186 SCRA 465 (1990)
While it may be true that Manuel was a probationary employee at the time of his dismiss he may not be dismissed without cause. This is settled in the caws of Manila Hotel Corporation v. NLRC and Renato L. G.R. No. 53453, January 22, 1986 and in the case of Alga Mother International Placement
Services v. Hon. D. Atienza, et .al., G.R. Nos. 74610-11, September 30,
1988 where We held —
There is no dispute that as a probationary employee, private respondent had but a limited tenure. Although on probationary basis, however, Cruz still enjoys the constitutional protection on security of tenure. During his tenure of employment therefore, or before his contract expires, respondent Cruz cannot be removed except for cause as provided for by law.
Managerial Employee Cases
Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises v NLRC, 235 SCRA 268 (1994)
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that confidential and managerial employees cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at any time, and without cause as reasonably established in an appropriate investigation.15 Such employees, too, are entitled to security of tenure, fair standards of employment and the protection of labor laws.
E. Management Rights and Security of Tenure • Requisites
o Exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s interests
o NOT for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements
Management Rights and Security of Tenure Cases
Collegio de San Juan de Letran v Assn of Employees, 340 SCRA 587 (2000)
The dismissal must be made pursuant to the tenets of equity and fair play; wherein the employer’s right to terminate the services of an employee must be exercised in good faith; furthermore, it must not amount to interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in their right to self- organization. The factual backdrop of the Ambas’ termination reveals that such was done in order to strip the union of a leader. Admittedly, management has the prerogative to discipline its employees for insubordination. But when the exercise of such management right tends to interfere with the employees’
right to self-organization, it amounts to union-busting and is therefore a prohibited act.
San Miguel Brewery etc v Ople, 170 SCRA 25 (1989)
San Miguel’s offer to compensate the members of its sales force who will be adversely affected by the implementation of the CDS, by paying them a so called “back adjustment commission” to make up for the commissions they might lose as a result of the CDS, proves the company’s good faith and lack of intention to bust their union.
So long as a company’s prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s interest & not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws / under valid agreements, the Supreme Court will uphold them.
F. Guidelines on Imposition of Penalties
a. Must NOT be exercised wantonly, but must be controlled by SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS and tempered by the fundamental policy of protection to labor
b. Penalty must be commensurate with the act, conduct or omission
c. Policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities must be FAIR and REASONABLE
d. Employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial personnel or those of similar rank performing functions which require the employer’s trust and confidence than in ordinary rank-and- file employees
e. Substantial proof is sufficient as basis for the imposition of any disciplinary action upon the employee
Cases
Central Pangasinan Electric Corp v NLRC, 528 SCRA 146 (2007)
Section 7, Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides that when the employee is dismissed for any of the just causes under . If the cause for the termination of employment cannot be considered as one of mere inefficiency or incompetence but an act that constitutes an utter disregard for the interest of the employer or a palpable breach of trust in him, the grant by the Court of separation benefits is hardly justifiable.
In this case, private respondent was found by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to have been validly dismissed for violations of company rules, and certain acts tantamount to serious misconduct. Such findings, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court.
The fact that private years with no negative record prior to his dismissal, in our view of this case, does not call for such award of benefits, since his violation reflects a regrettable lack of loyalty and worse, betrayal of the company. If an employee's length of service is to be regarded as a justification for moderating the penalty of dismissal, such gesture will actually become a prize for disloyalty, distorting the meaning of social justice and undermining the efforts of labor to cleanse its ranks of undesirables.
Marivel Trading Inc v NLRC, 525 SCRA 208 (2007)
For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause or dismissal, (a) it must be serious, (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties, and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. In this case, the acts complained of, under the circumstances they were done, did not in any way pertain to Abella's duties as chemist/quality controller. Moreover, Abella did not make false and malicious statements against her superior. Her remarks were neither insulting nor offensive. Her acts did not constitute serious misconduct as to justify her dismissal.
Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to the payment of his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. These remedies give life to the worker’s constitutional right to security of tenure.As regards backwages, it must be stressed
Associated Labor Unions-TUCP v NLRC, 302 SCRA 708 (1999)
There is no question that the employer has the inherent right to discipline, including that of dismissing its employees for just causes. This right is, however, subject to reasonable regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power. The finding of the NLRC that an employee violated the company rules and regulations is subject to scrutiny by the Court to determine if the dismissal is justified and, if so, whether the penalty imposed is commensurate to the gravity of his offense.
In this case, we agree with the Labor Arbiter that dismissal would be proportionate to the gravity of the offense committed by petitioner considering the value of the articles he pilfered and the fact that he had no previous derogatory record during his two (2) years of employment in the company. The Labor Arbiter is certainly mistaken in regarding the articles taken to be mere scraps and hence without value to the company. They were of some value but not enough to warrant dismissal.
Moreover, it should also be taken into account that petitioner is not a managerial or confidential employee in whom greater trust is placed by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly
expected. It is easy to see why an unfaithful employee who is holding a position of trust and confidence in a company poses a greater danger to its security than a mere clerk or machine operator like petitioner.