Euro-Linea Phil, Inc. vs. NLRC

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

Euro-Linea Phil, Inc. vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 78782
December 1 , 1987

Laborer’s Welfare: Liberal Approach

Facts:

Petitioner Euro-Linea Phil, Inc hired private respondent Pastoral as shipping expediter on a probationary basis for a period of six months. Prior to hiring by petitioner, Pastoral had been employed by Fitscher Manufacturing Corporation also as shipping expediter. On 4 February 1984, Pastoral received a memorandum terminating his probationary employment in view of his failure “to meet the performance standards set by the company”. Pastoral filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner. On 19 July 1985, the Labor Arbiter found petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal. Petitioner appealed the decision to the NLRC on 5 August 1985 but the appeal was dismissed. Hence the petition for review seeking to reverse and set aside the resolution of public respondent NLRC, affirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter, which ordered the reinstatement of complainant with six months backwages.

Issue:

Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in ruling against the dismissal of the respondent, a temporary or probationary employee, by his employer.

Ruling:

Although a probationary or temporary employee has a limited tenure, he still enjoys the constitutional protection of security of tenure.

Furthermore, what makes the dismissal highly suspicious is the fact that while petitioner claims that respondent was inefficient, it retained his services until the last remaining two weeks of the six months probationary employment. No less important is the fact that private respondent had been a shipping expediter for more than one and a half years before he was absorbed by petitioner. It therefore appears that the dismissal in question is without sufficient justification.

It must be emphasized that the prerogative of management to dismiss or lay-off an employee must be done without abuse of discretion, for what is at stake is not only petitioner's position but also his means of livelihood. The right of an employer to freely select or discharge his employees is subject to regulation by the State, basically in the exercise of its paramount police power.

Petition dismissed for lack of merit and decision by the NLRC is affirmed.

(Acknowledgement: Prince Fulgado)