027. Abbot Laboratories Philippines v Alcaraz

6/17/2015 G.R.No.192571

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_192571_2014.html 1/5

TodayisWednesday,June17,2015

AbbottLaboratories,Phils.v.PearlieAnnF.Alcaraz,G.R.No.192571,22April2014Resolution,PerlasBernabe[J]DissentingOpinion,Brion[J]

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

BaguioCity

ENBANC

G.R.No.192571April22,2014

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, PHILIPPINES, CECILLE A. TERRIBLE, EDWIN D. FEIST, MARIA OLIVIA T.YABUTMISA,TERESITAC.BERNARDO,ANDALLANG.ALMAZAR,Petitioners,vs.PEARLIEANNF.ALCARAZ,Respondent.

RESOLUTION

PERLASBERNABE,J.:

ForresolutionisrespondentPearlieAnnAlcaraz's(Alcaraz)MotionforReconsiderationdatedAugust23,2013oftheCourt'sDecisiondatedJuly23,2013(Decision).1

At theoutset, thereappears tobenosubstantialargument in thesaidmotionsufficient for theCourt todepartfrom thepronouncementsmade in the initial ruling.But ifonly toaddressAkaraz'snovelassertions,and tosoplacateanydoubtormisconceptionintheresolutionofthiscase,theCourtproceedstoshedlightonthemattersindicatedbelow.

A.Mannerofreview.

AlcarazcontendsthattheCourtshouldnothaveconductedareweighingofevidencesinceapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt(Rules)islimitedtothereviewofquestionsoflaw.ShesubmitsthatsincewhatwasunderreviewwasarulingoftheCourtofAppeals(CA)renderedviaapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRules,theCourtshouldonlydeterminewhetherornottheCAproperlydeterminedthattheNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)committedagraveabuseofdiscretion.

TheassertiondoesnotjustifythereconsiderationoftheassailedDecision.

AcarefulperusalofthequestionedDecisionwillrevealthattheCourtactuallyresolvedthecontroversyundertheabovestated frameworkofanalysis.Essentially, theCourt found theCA tohavecommittedanerror inholdingthatnograveabuseofdiscretioncanbeascribed to theNLRCsince the latterarbitrarilydisregarded the legalimplication of the attendant circumstances in this case which should have simply resulted in the finding thatAlcarazwasapprisedoftheperformancestandardsforherregularizationandhence,wasproperlyaprobationaryemployee.As theCourt observed, an employees failure to perform the duties and responsibilitieswhich havebeenclearlymadeknowntohimconstitutesajustifiablebasisforaprobationaryemployeesnonregularization.As detailed in the Decision, Alcaraz was wellapprised of her duties and responsibilities as well as theprobationarystatusofheremployment:

(a) On June 27, 2004, [Abbott Laboratories, Philippines (Abbott)] caused the publication in a majorbroadsheetnewspaperof itsneedforaRegulatoryAffairsManager, indicatingthereinthe jobdescriptionforaswellas thedutiesand responsibilitiesattendant to theaforesaidposition thispromptedAlcaraz tosubmitherapplicationtoAbbottonOctober4,2004

(b) In Abbotts December 7, 2004 offer sheet, it was stated that Alcaraz was to be employed on aprobationarystatus

(c)OnFebruary12,2005,Alcarazsignedanemploymentcontractwhichspecificallystated,interalia,thatshewastobeplacedonprobationforaperiodofsix(6)monthsbeginningFebruary15,2005toAugust14,2005

6/17/2015 G.R.No.192571


(d) On the day Alcaraz accepted Abbotts employment offer, Bernardo sent her copies of Abbottsorganizationalstructureandherjobdescriptionthroughemail

(e)Alcarazwasmadetoundergoapreemploymentorientationwhere[AllanG.Almazar]informedherthatshehadto implementAbbottsCodeofConductandofficepoliciesonhumanresourcesandfinanceandthatshewouldbereportingdirectlyto[KellyWalsh]

(f)Alcarazwasalsorequiredtoundergoatrainingprogramaspartofherorientation

(g)Alcaraz receivedcopiesofAbbottsCodeofConductandPerformanceModules from[MariaOliviaT.YabutMisa] who explained to her the procedure for evaluating the performance of probationaryemployeesshewasfurthernotifiedthatAbbotthadonlyoneevaluationsystemforallofitsemployeesand

(h)Moreover, Alcaraz had previously worked for another pharmaceutical company and had admitted tohavean"extensivetrainingandbackground"toacquirethenecessaryskillsforherjob.2

Considering the foregoing incidents which were readily observable from the records, the Court reached theconclusionthattheNLRCcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretion,viz.:

[I]nholdingthatAlcarazwasillegallydismissedduetoherstatusasaregularandnotaprobationaryemployee,theCourtfindsthattheNLRCcommittedagraveabuseofdiscretion.

To elucidate, records show that theNLRC based its decision on the premise that Alcarazs receipt of her jobdescription and Abbotts Code of Conduct and Performance Modules was not equivalent to being actuallyinformedoftheperformancestandardsuponwhichsheshouldhavebeenevaluatedon.It,however,overlookedthe legal implication of the other attendant circumstances as detailed herein which should have warranted acontraryfindingthatAlcarazwasindeedaprobationaryandnotaregularemployeemoreparticularlythefactthat shewaswellawareofherdutiesand responsibilitiesand thather failure toadequatelyperform thesamewouldleadtohernonregularizationandeventually,hertermination.3

Consequently, since the CA found that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and denied thecertioraripetitionbeforeit,thereversalofitsrulingwasthusinorder.

At this juncture, it bears exposition that while NLRC decisions are, by their nature, final and executory4 and,hence,notsubjecttoappellatereview,5theCourtisnotprecludedfromconsideringotherquestionsoflawasidefromtheCAsfindingontheNLRCsgraveabuseofdiscretion.Whilethefocalpointofanalysisrevolvesonthisissue, the Court may deal with ancillary issues such as, in this case, the question of how a probationaryemployee is deemed tohavebeen informedof the standardsof his regularization if only todetermine if theconceptsandprinciplesof labor lawwerecorrectlyappliedormisappliedby theNLRC in itsdecision. Inotherwords,theCourtsanalysisoftheNLRCsinterpretationoftheenvironmentalprinciplesandconceptsoflaborlawisnotcompletelyprohibitedinasitiscomplementarytoaRule45reviewoflaborcases.

Finally,ifonlytoputtorestAlcarazsmisgivingsonthemannerinwhichthiscasewasreviewed,itbearspointingoutthatno"factualappellatereview"wasconductedbytheCourtintheDecision.Rather,theCourtproceededtointerpret therelevant rulesonprobationaryemploymentasapplied tosettled factual findings.Besides,evenontheassumption thatascrutinyof factswasundertaken, theCourt isnotaltogetherbarred fromconducting thesame.Thiswasexplained in thecaseofCareerPhilippinesShipmanagement, Inc.v.Serna6wherein theCourtheldasfollows:

Accordingly,wedonotreexamineconflictingevidence,reevaluatethecredibilityofwitnesses,orsubstitutethefindingsoffactoftheNLRC,anadministrativebodythathasexpertiseinitsspecializedfield.Nordowesubstituteour "own judgment for thatof the tribunal indeterminingwhere theweightofevidence liesorwhatevidence iscredible."ThefactualfindingsoftheNLRC,whenaffirmedbytheCA,aregenerallyconclusiveonthisCourt.

Nevertheless, there are exceptional caseswherewe, in the exercise of our discretionary appellate jurisdictionmay be urged to look into factual issues raised in a Rule 45 petition. For instance, when the petitionerpersuasivelyallegesthatthereisinsufficientorinsubstantialevidenceonrecordtosupportthefactualfindingsofthetribunalorcourtaquo,asSection5,Rule133oftheRulesofCourtstatesinexpresstermsthatincasesfiledbeforeadministrativeorquasijudicialbodies,afactmaybedeemedestablishedonlyifsupportedbysubstantialevidence.7(Emphasissupplied)

B.Standardsforregularizationconceptualunderpinnings.

Alcarazpositsthat,contrarytotheCourtsDecision,onesjobdescriptioncannotbyandofitselfbetreatedasastandardforregularizationasastandarddenotesameasureofquantityorquality.Bywayofexample,Alcarazcitesthecaseofaprobationarysalespersonandaskshowdoessuchemployeeachieveregularstatusifhedoes

6/17/2015 G.R.No.192571


notknowhowmuchheneedstoselltoreachthesame.

Theargumentisuntenable.

Firstoff,theCourtmustcorrectAlcarazsmistakennotion:itisnottheprobationaryemployeesjobdescriptionbuttheadequateperformanceofhisdutiesandresponsibilitieswhichconstitutesthe inherentand impliedstandardfor regularization. To echo the fundamental point of theDecision, if the probationary employee had been fullyapprisedbyhisemployerof thesedutiesandresponsibilities, thenbasicknowledgeandcommonsensedictatethat hemust adequately perform the same, else he fails to pass the probationary trial andmay therefore besubjecttotermination.8

Thedeterminationof"adequateperformance"isnot, inallcases,measurablebyquantitativespecification,suchasthatofasalesquota inAlcarazsexample. It isalsohingedonthequalitativeassessmentof theemployeeswork by its nature, this largely rests on the reasonable exercise of the employers management prerogative.Whileinsomeinstancesthestandardsusedinmeasuringthequalityofworkmaybeconveyedsuchasworkerswhoconstructtangibleproductswhichfollowparticularmetrics,notallstandardsofqualitymeasurementmaybereducibletohardfiguresorarereadilyarticulableinspecificpreengagementdescriptions.Agoodexamplewouldbethecaseofprobationaryemployeeswhosetasksinvolvetheapplicationofdiscretionandintellect,suchastonameafewlawyers,artists,andjournalists.Inthesekindsofoccupation,thebestthattheemployercandoatthetimeofengagementistoinformtheprobationaryemployeeofhisdutiesandresponsibilitiesandtoorienthimonhowtoproperlyproceedwiththesame.Theemployercannotbearout inexactingdetailat thebeginningoftheengagementwhathedeemsas"qualitywork"especiallysincetheprobationaryemployeehasyettosubmittherequiredoutput. In theultimateanalysis, thecommunicationofperformancestandardsshouldbeperceivedwithinthecontextofthenatureoftheprobationaryemployeesdutiesandresponsibilities.

The same logic applies to a probationary managerial employee who is tasked to supervise a particulardepartment, as Alcaraz in this case.1 w p h i1 It is hardly possible for the employer, at the time of the employeesengagement,tomapintotechnicalindicators,orconveyinprecisedetailthequalitystandardsbywhichthelattershouldeffectivelymanagethedepartment.Factorswhichgaugetheabilityofthemanagerialemployeetoeitherdealwithhissubordinates(e.g.,howtospurtheirperformance,orcommandrespectandobediencefromthem),ortoorganizeofficepolicies,arehardlyconveyableattheoutsetoftheengagementsincetheemployeehasyettobe immersed intothework itself.Giventhatamanagerial roleessentiallyconnotesanexerciseofdiscretion,thequalityofeffectivemanagementcanonlybedeterminedthroughsubsequentassessment.Whileatthetimeofengagement, reason dictates that the employer can only inform the probationarymanagerial employee of hisdutiesand responsibilitiesassuchandprovide theallowableparameters for thesame.Verily, asstated in theDecision,theadequateperformanceofsuchdutiesandresponsibilitiesis,byandofitself,animpliedstandardofregularization.

Inthisrelation, itbearsmentioningthattheperformancestandardcontemplatedbylawshouldnot, inallcases,becontained inaspecializedsystemof feedbacksorevaluation.TheCourt takes judicialnoticeof thefact thatnot all employers, such as simple businesses or smallscale enterprises, have a sophisticated form of humanresourcemanagement,somuchsothattheadoptionoftechnicalindicatorsasutilizedthrough"commentcards"or"appraisal" toolsshouldnotbe treatedasaprerequisite foreverycaseofprobationaryengagement. In fact,even ifasystemofsuchkind isemployedandtheprocedures for its implementationarenot followed,onceanemployerdeterminesthat theprobationaryemployeefails tomeet thestandardsrequiredforhisregularization,theformerisnotprecludedfromdismissingthelatter.Theruleisthatwhenavalidcauseforterminationexists,theprocedural infirmityattending the terminationonlywarrants thepaymentofnominaldamages.Thiswas theprinciplelaiddowninthelandmarkcasesofAgabonv.NLRC9(Agabon)andJakaFoodProcessingCorporationv.Pacot10 (Jaka). In theassailedDecision, theCourtactuallyextended theapplicationof theAgabonandJakarulings to breaches of company procedure, notwithstanding the employers compliance with the statutoryrequirementsundertheLaborCode.11Hence,althoughAbbottdidnotcomplywithitsownterminationprocedure,its noncompliance thereof would not detract from the finding that there subsists a valid cause to terminateAlcarazs employment. Abbott, however, was penalized for its contractual breach and thereby ordered to paynominaldamages.

As a final point, Alcaraz cannot take refuge in Aliling v. Feliciano12 (Aliling) since the same is not squarelyapplicable to the case at bar. The employee in Aliling, a sales executive,was belatedly informed of his quotarequirement.Thus,consideringthenatureofhisposition,thefactthathewasnotinformedofhissalesquotaatthetimeofhisengagementchangedthecomplexionofhisemployment.Contrarily,thenatureofAlcaraz'sdutiesand responsibilitiesasRegulatoryAffairsManagernegates theapplicationof the foregoing.Recordsshow thatAlcarazwasterminatedbecauseshe(a)didnotmanagehertimeeffectively(b)failedtogainthetrustofherstaffandtobuildaneffectiverapportwiththem(c)failedtotrainherstaffeffectivelyand(d)wasnotabletoobtaintheknowledgeandabilitytomakesoundjudgmentsoncaseprocessingandarticlereviewwhichwerenecessaryfortheproperperformanceofherduties.13Duetothenatureandvarietyofthesemanagerialfunctions,thebestthat Abbott could have done, at the time of Alcaraz's engagement, was to inform her of her duties andresponsibilities, the adequate performance of which, to repeat, is an inherent and implied standard for

6/17/2015 G.R.No.192571


regularizationthisisunlikethecircumstanceinAlilingwhereaquantitativeregularizationstandard,inthetermofasalesquota,wasreadilyarticulabletotheemployeeattheoutset.Hence,sincethereasonablenessofAlcaraz'sassessment clearly appears from the records, her terminationwas justified. Bear inmind that the quantum ofproofwhichtheemployermustdischargeisonlysubstantialevidencewhich,asdefinedincaselaw,meansthatamountof relevantevidenceasa reasonablemindmightacceptasadequate to support a conclusion, even ifother minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.14 To the Court's mind, this threshold ofevidenceAbbottamplyovercameinthiscase.

All told, theCourtherebydenies the instantmotion for reconsiderationandtherebyupholds theDecision in themaincase.

WHEREFORE,themotionforreconsiderationdatedAugust23,2013oftheCourt'sDecisiondatedJuly23,2013inthiscaseisherebyDENIED.

SOORDERED.

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABEAssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENOChiefJustice

ANTONIOT.CARPIOAssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.VELASCO,JR.AssociateJustice

See:MyDissentARTUROD.BRIONAssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTAAssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMINAssociateJustice

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLOAssociateJustice

ROBERTOA.ABADAssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZAssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZAAssociateJustice

BIENVENIDOL.REYESAssociateJustice

IjointhedissentofJ.BrionMARVICMARIOVICTORF.LEONEN

AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case wasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENOChiefJustice

Footnotes1AbbotLaboratories,Philippinesv.Alcaraz,G.R.No.192571,July23,2013,701SCRA682.2Id.at708709.3Id.at710.

6/17/2015 G.R.No.192571


4SeeArticle223oftheLaborCode,asamended.5SeeSt.MartinFuneralHomev.NLRC,356Phil.811(1998).6G.R.No.172086,December3,2012,686SCRA676.7Id.at684685.8Section2,RuleI,BookVIoftheImplementingRulesoftheLaborCodeprovidesthat"[i]ftheterminationis brought about by the x x x failure of an employee tomeet the standards of the employer in case ofprobationary employment, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served the employee, within areasonable time from the effective date of termination." To this end, the Court in the assailed Decisionpronouncedthat:

Verily,basicknowledgeandcommonsensedictatethattheadequateperformanceofonesdutiesis,by and of itself, an inherent and implied standard for a probationary employee to be regularizedsuch is a regularization standardwhich need not be literally spelled out ormapped into technicalindicators ineverycase. In this regard, itmustbeobserved that theassessmentofadequatedutyperformance is in thenatureofamanagementprerogativewhichwhen reasonablyexercisedasAbbottdidinthiscaseshouldberespected.ThisisespeciallytrueofamanagerialemployeelikeAlcarazwhowastaskedwiththevitalresponsibilityofhandlingthepersonnelandimportantmattersofherdepartment.(AbbotLaboratories,Philippinesv.Alcaraz,supranote1,at709710.)

9G.R.No.158693,November17,2004,442SCRA573.10G.R.No.151378,March28,2005,454SCRA119.11 "Evidently, the sanctions imposed in both Agabon and Jaka proceed from the necessity to deteremployers from future violations of the statutory due process rights of employees. In similar regard, theCourt deems it proper to apply the same principle to the case at bar for the reason that an employerscontractualbreachofitsowncompanyprocedurealbeitnotstatutoryinsourcehastheparalleleffectofviolating the laborers rights. Suffice it to state, the contract is the law between the parties and thus,breachesof thesame impel recompense tovindicatea right thathasbeenviolated.Consequently,whiletheCourtiswonttoupholdthedismissalofAlcarazbecauseavalidcauseexists,thepaymentofnominaldamagesonaccountofAbbottscontractualbreachiswarrantedinaccordancewithArticle2221oftheCivilCode."(AbbotLaboratories,Philippinesv.Alcaraz,supranote1,at715716.)12G.R.No.185829,April25,2012,671SCRA186.13Rollo,pp.1921,78,and8081.14PhilippineCommercial IndustrialBank v.Cabrera,G.R.No. 160368,March30, 2005, 454SCRA792,803.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

Documents

027. Abbot Laboratories Philippines v Alcaraz