Facts
From January 2012 to July 15, 2013, respondents worked for petitioners as events marketing and logistics officers without any written contract. On July 16, 2013, petitioners issued probationary contracts commencing on the same date and until December 16, 2013.
On January 8, 2014, respondents were illegally dismissed and were no longer allowed to report for work.
Respondents argued that they were regular employees of the petitioners as they rendered more than one year of continuous service, and the nature of their work was necessary in the usual business of Adstratworld. Respondents’ probationary contracts were also just a ploy to circumvent their right to security of tenure, and their dismissal from work was without any just or authorized cause.
On the other hand, petitioners contended that at the time of their engagement, respondents were aware that they must abide by the standards set forth to attain regular status; respondents failed to comply with these standards, which proved them unfit for permanent employment.
The LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, which the NLRC affirmed. The CA reversed and set aside the NLRC ruling, and found that respondents were regular employees of Adstratworld as their work was necessary and desirable in its advertising business.
Hence, this petition
ISSUE: (1) Whether or not respondents were regular employees, and (2) whether or not respondents were illegally dismissed.
Ruling
- YES. Under Article 295 of the Labor Code, a regular employee is one who has been engaged to perform tasks usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s usual business or trade – without falling within the category of either a fixed, project, or seasonal employee; or one who has rendered at least a year of service, with respect to the activity he or she is engaged, and the work of the employee remains while such activity exists.
Here, respondents performed tasks necessary and desirable in the usual business of Adstratworld. Respondents’ work as events marketing and logistics officers is vital in the advertising business of Adstratworld, making them its regular employees from the very beginning of their employment.
Even assuming that the engagement of respondents in January 2012 was merely probationary, by July 16, 2013 (or at the time their probationary contracts were issued), they were already regular employees. As above-mentioned, employment for at least one year, with respect to the activity that the employee had been engaged in, makes one a regular employee. Considering that respondents were in the service of Adstratworld for more than a year, doing the usual tasks that they were engaged to perform, they are regular employees of the company - YES. It is settled that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden to prove that the termination of the employee is for a valid cause. To validly dismiss a regular employee, the employer must observe substantive and procedural due process. Substantive due process requires that the dismissal must be pursuant to any of the just or authorized causes under the law. Specifically, a “dismissal based on a just cause implies that the employee has committed some violation against the employer; hence, it can be said that the employee initiated the dismissal process.” Meanwhile, procedural due process requires that the employee must be given notice of the reason for one’s dismissal, an opportunity to be heard and defend himself or herself, and a notice of the employee’s termination.
Here, Adstratworld dismissed respondents on the latter’s alleged failure to adhere to the standards set forth at the time of hiring, and which standards would determine whether respondents would qualify as regular employees. However, respondents were employed as regular employees from the commencement of their work in January 2012. Here, the alleged decline in the performance of respondents and the imputed violations against them (unauthorized distribution and bringing in of items in the company premises, and tardiness on the part of Lucino) while respondents were under the supposed probationary period would not justify their termination from work. To reiterate,· Adstratworld anchored its dismissal on respondents’ failure to qualify for regular employment. However, respondents were already regular employees, and there was no reason for them to be placed under probationary status after already attaining regular employment status. It is thus inconsistent and absurd that Adstratworld would rehire respondents as probationary employees on July 16, 2013, and expect them to do the very same tasks they were already performing since January 2012.
Even assuming arguendo that respondents were employed as mere probationary employees on July 16, 2013, there was no evidence that Adstratworld set forth reasonable standards for respondents’ regularization, which were made known at the time of their engagement.
In Agustin v. Alphaland Corp., the Court elucidated that in probationary employment, it is indispensable that the employer informs the employee at the time of engagement of the reasonable standards by which he or she will be evaluated for regularization. In case the employer fails to comply with this requirement, the employee shall be deemed a regular employee. The absence of any clear standards set forth and communicated by Adstratworld at the inception of the supposed probationary employment of respondents proved that they were regular employees of Adstratworld.
In view of all the foregoing, it is beyond cavil that Adstratworld dismissed respondents without observing the substantive and procedural due process required under the law.