Download pdf - Abbott Laboratories Philippines

7/25/2019 Abbott Laboratories Philippines

1/6

Abbott Laboratories Philippines, et. al. vs. Alcaraz G.R. No. 192571, Jul

2!, 2"1!

#acts$

On June 27, 2004, petitioner Abbott caused the publication in a major

broadsheet newspaper of its need for a Medical and Regulator A!airs Manager"Regulator A!airs Manager#$ Respondent % who was then a Regulator A!airs and

&nformation Manager of a compan li'e Abbott % showed interest and submitted her

application$ On (ecember 7, 2004, Abbott formall o!ered respondent the

abo)ementioned position$ &n Abbott*s o!er sheet, it was stated that respondent was

to be emploed on a probationar basis$ +ater that da, she accepted the said o!er

and recei)ed an email from Abbott*s Recruitment O-ce con.rming the same$

Attached to the Abbott*s email were its organi/ational chart and a job description of

respondent*s wor'$ On ebruar 12, 200, respondent signed an emploment

contract which stated, inter alia, that she was to be placed on probation for a period

of si3 "# months beginning ebruar 1, 200 to August 14, 200$ 5he said

contract was also signed b Abbott*s 6eneral Manager$ (uring respondent*s preemploment orientation, the 5ransition Manager, briefed her on her duties and

responsibilities as Regulator A!airs Manager$ On March , 200, Abbott*s 8uman

Resources (irector, sent respondent an email which contained an e3planation of

the procedure for e)aluating the performance of probationar emploees and

further indicated that Abbott had onl one e)aluation sstem for all of its

emploees$ Respondent was also gi)en copies of Abbott*s 9ode of 9onduct and

:robationar :erformance ;tandards and uall re>uired that a signed cop of the ::;ualif her as a regular emploeeD

"b# Cas respondent )alidl terminated from her emplomentD

Rulin&$

"a# Ees$ A probationar emploee, li'e a regular emploee, enjos securit oftenure$ 8owe)er, in cases of probationar emploment, aside from just or

authori/ed causes of termination, an additional ground is pro)ided under Article 2F

of the +abor 9ode, i$e$, the probationar emploee ma also be terminated for

failure to >ualif as a regular emploee in accordance with the reasonable standards

made 'nown b the emploer to the emploee at the time of the engagement

"Robinsons 6alleria )$ Ranche/, 6$R$ Bo$ 177F7, Januar 1F, 2011#$ 5hus, the

ser)ices of an emploee who has been engaged on probationar basis ma be

terminated for an of the following= "a# a just or "b# an authori/ed causeG and "c#

when he fails to >ualif as a regular emploee in accordance with reasonable

standards prescribed b the emploer$

9orollar thereto, ;ection "d#, Rule &, Hoo' I& of the &mplementing Rules of

the +abor 9ode pro)ides that if the emploer fails to inform the probationar

emploee of the reasonable standards upon which the regulari/ation would be

based on at the time of the engagement, then the said emploee shall be deemed a

regular emploee, )i/$= @"d# &n all cases of probationar emploment, the emploer

shall ma'e 'nown to the emploee the standards under which he will >ualif as a

regular emploee at the time of his engagement$ Chere no standards are made


3/6

'nown to the emploee at that time, he shall be deemed a regular emploee$ &n

other words, the emploer is made to compl with two "2# re>uirements when

dealing with a probationar emploee= .rst, the emploer must communicate the

regulari/ation standards to the probationar emploeeG and second, the emploer

must ma'e such communication at the time of the probationar emploee*s

engagement$ &f the emploer fails to compl with either, the emploee is deemed asa regular and not a probationar emploee$

eeping with these rules, an emploer is deemed to ha)e made 'nown the

standards that would >ualif a probationar emploee to be a regular emploee

when it has e3erted reasonable e!orts to apprise the emploee of what he is

e3pected to do or accomplish during the trial period of probation$ 5his goes without

saing that the emploee is su-cientl made aware of his probationar status as

well as the length of time of the probation$ 5he e3ception to the foregoing is when

the job is selfdescripti)e in nature, for instance, in the case of maids, coo's,

dri)ers, or messengers$ Also, in Aberdeen 9ourt, &nc$ )$ Agustin, it has been held

that the rule on notifing a probationar emploee of the standards of regulari/ation

should not be used to e3culpate an emploee who acts in a manner contrar tobasic 'nowledge and common sense in regard to which there is no need to spell out

a polic or standard to be met$ &n the same light, an emploee*s failure to perform

the duties and responsibilities which ha)e been clearl made 'nown to him

constitutes a justi.able basis for a probationar emploee*s non regulari/ation$

&n this case, a punctilious e3amination of the records re)eals that Abott had

indeed complied with the abo)estated re>uirements$ 5his conclusion is largel

impelled b the fact that Abott clearl con)eed to respondent her duties and

responsibilities as Regulator A!airs Manager prior to, during the time of her

engagement, and the incipient stages of her emploment$ On this score, the 9ourt

.nds it apt to detail not onl the incidents which point out to the e!orts made bAbbott but also those circumstances which would show that respondent was well

apprised of her emploer*s e3pectations that would, in turn, determine her

regulari/ation$ Ieril, basic 'nowledge and common sense dictate that the

ade>uate performance of one*s duties is, b and of itself, an inherent and implied

standard for a probationar emploee to be regulari/edG such is a regulari/ation

standard which need not be literall spelled out or mapped into technical indicators

in e)er case$ &n this regard, it must be obser)ed that the assessment of ade>uate

dut performance is in the nature of a management prerogati)e which when

reasonabl e3ercised % as Abbott did in this case % should be respected$ 5his is

especiall true of a managerial emploee li'e respondent who was tas'ed with the

)ital responsibilit of handling the personnel and important matters of her

department$ &n .ne, the 9ourt rules that respondent*s status as a probationar

emploee and her conse>uent dismissal must stand$

9onse>uentl, in holding that respondent was illegall dismissed due to her

status as a regular and not a probationar emploee, the 9ourt .nds that the B+R9

committed a gra)e abuse of discretion$ 5o elucidate, records show that the B+R9

based its decision on the premise that respondent*s receipt of her job description

and Abbott*s 9ode of 9onduct and :erformance Modules was not e>ui)alent to


4/6

being actuall informed of the performance standards upon which she should ha)e

been e)aluated on$ &t, howe)er, o)erloo'ed the legal implication of the other

attendant circumstances as detailed herein which should ha)e warranted a contrar

.nding that respondent was indeed a probationar and not a regular emploee %

more particularl the fact that she was wellaware of her duties and responsibilities

and that her failure to ade>uatel perform the same would lead to her nonregulari/ation and e)entuall, her termination$

"b# A di!erent procedure is applied when terminating a probationar

emploeeG the usual twonotice rule does not go)ern$ ;ection 2, Rule &, Hoo' I& of

the &mplementing Rules of the +abor 9ode states that @KiLf the termination is

brought about b the 3 3 3 failure of an emploee to meet the standards of the

emploer in case of probationar emploment, it shall be su-cient that a written

notice is ser)ed the emploee, within a reasonable time from the e!ecti)e date of

termination$

&n this case, respondent*s dismissal was e!ected through a letter dated Ma

1F, 200 which she recei)ed on Ma 2, 200 and again on Ma 27, 200$ ;tatedtherein were the reasons for her termination, i$e$, that after proper e)aluation,

Abbott determined that she failed to meet the reasonable standards for her

regulari/ation considering her lac' of time and people management and

decisionma'ing s'ills, which are necessar in the performance of her functions as

Regulator A!airs Manager$ ndeniabl, this written notice su-cientl meets the

criteria set forth abo)e, thereb legitimi/ing the cause and manner of respondent*s

dismissal as a probationar emploee under the parameters set b the +abor 9ode$

Bonetheless, despite the e3istence of a su-cient ground to terminate

respondent*s emploment and Abbott*s compliance with the +abor 9ode termination

procedure, it is readil apparent that Abbott breached its contractual obligation to

respondent when it failed to abide b its own procedure in e)aluating theperformance of a probationar emploee$ Ieritabl, a compan polic parta'es of

the nature of an implied contract between the emploer and emploee$ &n :arts

(epot, &nc$ )$ Heiswenger, 170 ;$C$ d 4 "$ 200#, it has been held that=

K


5/6

8ence, gi)en such nature, compan personnel policies create an obligation

on the part of both the emploee and the emploer to abide b the same$ Records

show that Abbott*s ::;< procedure mandates, inter alia, that the job performance of

a probationar emploee should be formall re)iewed and discussed with the

emploee at least twice= .rst on the third month and second on the .fth month from

the date of emploment$ Abbott is also re>uired to come up with a :erformance&mpro)ement :lan during the third month re)iew to bridge the gap between the

emploee*s performance and the standards set, if an$ &n addition, a signed cop of

the ::;< form should be submitted to Abbott*s 8R( as the same would ser)e as

basis for recommending the con.rmation or termination of the probationar

emploment$ &n this case, it is apparent that Abbott failed to follow the abo)estated

procedure in e)aluating respondent$ or one, there lies a hiatus of e)idence that a

signed cop of respondent*s ::;< form was submitted to the 8R($ &t was not e)en

shown that a ::;< form was completed to formall assess her performance$ Beither

was the performance e)aluation discussed with her during the third and .fth

months of her emploment$ Bor did Abbott come up with the necessar

:erformance &mpro)ement :lan to properl gauge respondent*s performance with

the set compan standards$

Chile it is Abbott*s management prerogati)e to promulgate its own compan

rules and e)en subse>uentl amend them, this right e>uall demands that when it

does create its own policies and thereafter notif its emploee of the same, it

accords upon itself the obligation to faithfull implement them$ &ndeed, a contrar

interpretation would entail a disharmonious relationship in the wor' place for the

laborer should ne)er be mired b the uncertaint of ims rules in which the latter*s

labor rights and duties would, to some e3tent, depend$ &n this light, while there lies

due cause to terminate respondent*s probationar emploment for her failure to

meet the standards re>uired for her regulari/ation, and while it must be further

pointed out that Abbott had satis.ed its statutor dut to ser)e a written notice oftermination, the fact that it )iolated its own compan procedure renders the

termination of respondent*s emploment procedurall in.rm, warranting the

pament of nominal damages$ A further e3position is apropos$

9ase law has settled that an emploer who terminates an emploee for a

)alid cause but does so through in)alid procedure is liable to pa the latter nominal

damages$ &n Agabon )$ B+R9 "Agabon#, the 9ourt pronounced that where the

dismissal is for a just cause, the lac' of statutor due process should not nullif the

dismissal, or render it illegal, or ine!ectual$ 8owe)er, the emploer should

indemnif the emploee for the )iolation of his statutor rights$ 5hus, in Agabon,

the emploer was ordered to pa the emploee nominal damages in the amount of

:0,000$00$ :roceeding from the same ratio, the 9ourt modi.ed Agabon in the case

of Ja'a ood :rocessing 9orporation )$ :acot "Ja'a# where it created a distinction

between procedurall defecti)e dismissals due to a just cause, on one hand, and

those due to an authori/ed cause, on the other$ &t was e3plained that if the dismissal

is based on a just cause under Article 2N2 of the +abor 9ode "now Article 2F# but

the emploer failed to compl with the notice re>uirement, the sanction to be

imposed upon him should be tempered because the dismissal process was, in


6/6

e!ect, initiated b an act imputable to the emploeeG if the dismissal is based on an

authori/ed cause under Article 2N "now Article 2F7# but the emploer failed to

compl with the notice re>uirement, the sanction should be sti!er because the

dismissal process was initiated b the emploer*s e3ercise of his management

prerogati)e$ 8ence, in Ja'a, where the emploee was dismissed for an authori/ed

cause of retrenchment % as contradistinguished from the emploee in Agabon whowas dismissed for a just cause of neglect of dut % the 9ourt ordered the emploer

to pa the emploee nominal damages at the higher amount of :0,000$00$