NT

E
M
Y
O
L
P
M
E
F
O
N
IO
TERMINAT

Y
R
A
N
O
I
T
A
P RO B
T
N
E
M
Y
O
L
P
EM
LABOR STANDARDS
JDPAGADUAN

S
N
O
I
T
A
B
O
R
P
E
V
I
NO SUCCESS

AN

EMPLOYEE WHO IS ALLOWED TO WORK AFTER A

PROBATIONARY PERIOD SHALL BE CONSIDERED A REGULAR
EMPLOYEE
1. The nature of her job as a parts clerk require her activities which are
deemed necessary and desirable in the usual business of the
General Diesel Power Company, in connection with dealing in
parts, sales, and services.
2. Her employment was not covered by any apprenticeship
agreement.
3. She was rehired repetitiously (May 22, 1985, Feb. 20, 1986)
Octaviano vs. NLRC, GR No. 88636, Oct. 3, 1991

S
N
O
I
T
A
B
O
R
P
E
V
I
NO SUCCESS
The act of the employer in repeatedly rehiring a probationary employee
negates the formers claim that the latter failed to qualify as regular
employee. As held in Octaviano vs. NLRC, this successive hirings and
firings are ploy to avoid the obligations imposed by law on employers for the
protection and benefits of the probationary employees, who, more often
than not, are kept in the bondage, so to speak, of unending probationary
employment without any complaint due to the serious unemployment
problem besetting the country.
If no stipulation on probationary employment, employment is deemed
regular.

S
N
O
I
T
A
B
O
R
P
E
V
I
NO SUCCESS

AN

EMPLOYEE WHO IS ALLOWED TO WORK AFTER A

PROBATIONARY PERIOD SHALL BE CONSIDERED A REGULAR
EMPLOYEE

Probation in Sister Company

There is no basis for subjecting an employee to anew probationary or temporary
employment where he had already become a regular employee when absorbed by a sister
company.

S
H
T
N
O
M
6
Y
L
I
R
A
S
S
E
C
E
N
T
O
N
N
O
I
T
A
B
PE R I O D O F PR O
(ART. 265) PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED 6
MONTHS
The probationary employee may be dismissed for cause at any time before
the expiration of 6 months after hiring. But if he continues to work beyond 6
months, he ceases being a probationary employee and becomes a regular
or permanent employee.
GENERAL RULE: SIX-MONTH PROBATION
EXCEPTION: Probation more than 6 months (if parties agree)
Buiser, et al vs. Hon. Vicente Leogardo, Jr. & General Tel. Directory Co.
GR No. L-63316, July 31,1984

Buiser, et al vs. Hon. Vicente Leogardo, Jr. & General Tel. Directory Co.
GR L-63316, July 31,1984
there is recognition of the exercise of managerial prerogatives in requiring a
longer period of probationary employment, such as in the present case where
the probationary period was set 1 for eighteen (18) months, i.e. from May,
1980 to October, 1981 inclusive, especially where the employee must learn a
particular kind of work such as selling, or when the job requires certain
qualifications, skills, experience or training. xxx

N
O
I
T
A
B
O
R
P
F
O
EXTENSION
Q: MAY THE EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE VALIDLY AGREE TO
EXTEND THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD BEYOND SIX (6) MONTHS?
YES, agreements stipulating longer probationary periods may constitute lawful
exceptions to the statutory prescription limiting such periods to six months.
In Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Leogardo (G.R. No 74246, 26 January 1989), the
Supreme Court stated that the extension of the probationary period was ex gratia, an act of
liberality on the part of the employer affording the employee a second chance to make good
after having initially failed to prove his worth as an employee. Such an act cannot unjustly be
turned against said employers account to compel it to keep on its payroll one who could not
perform according to its work standards. By voluntarily agreeing to an extension of the
probationary period, the employee in effect waived any benefit attaching to the completion of
said period if he still failed to make the grade during the period of extension.

N
O
I
T
A
B
O
R
P
F
O
Y
A
D
LAST
Q: WHEN THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF AN EMPLOYEE IS, FOR
EXAMPLE,. SIX MONTHS, WHEN IS ITS LAST DAY?
Supreme Court used two different computation methods
Under the first method, a probation of, say 6 months, ends on the
same date it started 6 months before.
CALS Poultry vs. Roco, GR No. 150660, July 30, 2002
Alcira vs. NLRC and Middleby, GR No. 149859, June 9, 2004

N
O
I
T
A
B
O
R
P
F
O
Y
A
D
LAST
Q: WHEN THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF AN EMPLOYEE IS, FOR
EXAMPLE,. SIX MONTHS, WHEN IS ITS LAST DAY?
Supreme Court used two different computation methods
Under the second method, it ends 180 days from the starting date.
Mitsubishi Motors vs. Chrysler Phil. Labor Union, GR No.
148738, June 29, 2004

S
R
E
H
C
A
E
T
F
O
N
O
I
T
A
PROB
THE PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT OF PROFESSORS, INSTRUCTORS
AND TEACHERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO STANDARDS ESTABLISHED
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
75. Full time teachers who have rendered three consecutive years of satisfactory
service shall be considered permanent.
The legal requisites, therefore, for acquisition by a teacher of permanent employment,
or security of tenure, are as follows:
1) the teacher is a full time teacher;
2) the teacher must have rendered three (3) consecutive years of service; and
3) such service must have been satisfactory.
- paragraph 75. Manual of Regulations for Private Schools

S
R
E
H
C
A
E
T
F
O
N
O
I
T
A
PROB
Manual of Regulations also states that a full time teacher is;
a. One whose total working day is devoted to school;
b. has no other regular remunerative employment; and
c. is paid on a regular monthly basis regardless of number of teaching hours;
and that in college,
the normal teaching load of a full-time instructor shall be eighteen (18) hours a
month.
A part-time member of the faculty cannot acquire permanent employment under the Manual
of Regulations in relation to the Labor Code.

S
R
E
H
C
A
E
T
F
O
N
O
I
T
A
PROB
Article 282 [now 281] of the Labor Code which provides that;
the services of an employee who as been engaged on a probationary basis may be
terminated or a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in
accordance with reasonable standards made known to the employee at the time of his
engagement.

S
R
E
H
C
A
E
T
F
O
N
O
I
T
A
PROB
Reversion from FULL-TIME to PART-TIME Teacher
In Bongar vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 107234, August 24, 1998, the
Supreme Court ordered the payment not only of separation pay and full
backwages to an illegally dismissed teacher but additionally, of the
retirement benefits "pursuant to any collective bargaining agreement in
the workplace or, in the absence thereof, as provided in Section 14
[Retirement Benefits], Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor
Code.
"If this line of reasoning (which We perceive to be too technical to serve the ends of justice) is adopted in the process of determining the
regularity of a teachers employment, the possibility of a teacher becoming infinitely non-regular is not too far-fetched to expect. For all that an
unscrupulous school has to do to negate or render meaningless the rule on probationary employment, is to inflexibly confine the recruitment or
employment of its teachers to part-time basis, or to revert, as what happened to the complainant herein, an originally full-time status to
mere part-time basis to prevent in any way the incumbent teacher from becoming regular, a subtle way of circumventing the Labor Code
provisions on probationary employment.