View full case

ABBOTT LABORATORIES v. PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ

FACTS:

The motion for reconsideration was filed by respondent Pearlie Ann Alcaraz (Alcaraz) regarding the court's decision dated July 23, 2013. Alcaraz argues that the court should not have conducted a re-weighing of evidence since a petition for review on certiorari is limited to questions of law. She claims that the court should have only determined whether or not the Court of Appeals properly determined that the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion. However, the court found that the case was resolved under the framework of analysis proposed by Alcaraz.

The court found that Alcaraz was informed of her duties and responsibilities as a probationary employee. Various evidence such as the publication of the job description, Alcaraz's employment contract, her receipt of Abbott's organizational structure and job description, pre-employment orientation, and training program were presented to show that Alcaraz was well-informed about her probationary status and the performance standards necessary for her regularization. The court further observed that Alcaraz's failure to perform her duties and responsibilities justified her non-regularization. Therefore, the court concluded that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that Alcaraz was illegally dismissed as a regular employee.

The court also clarified that it is not prohibited from considering ancillary issues, such as the question of how a probationary employee is deemed to have been informed of the standards of regularization, apart from the finding of grave abuse of discretion. Finally, the court explained that no factual appellate review was conducted, as the court only interpreted the relevant rules on probationary employment based on settled factual findings.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court should have conducted a re-weighing of evidence in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

  2. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in its finding that Alcaraz was illegally dismissed due to her status as a regular and not a probationary employee.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that it is not precluded from considering other questions of law aside from the Court of Appeals' finding on the NLRC's grave abuse of discretion. The Court may deal with ancillary issues, such as the question of how a probationary employee is deemed to have been informed of the standards of regularization, to determine if the concepts and principles of labor law were correctly applied or misapplied by the NLRC in its decision. The Court's analysis of the NLRC's interpretation of the environmental principles and concepts of labor law is not completely prohibited in a Rule 45 review of labor cases.

  2. The Court held that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in its finding that Alcaraz was illegally dismissed as a regular employee. The Court examined the records and found that Alcaraz was well-aware of her duties and responsibilities and that her failure to adequately perform the same would lead to her non-regularization and termination. The NLRC overlooked the legal implication of the attendant circumstances, including Alcaraz's knowledge of her probationary status and the consequences of failure to meet performance standards.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is not limited to the review of questions of law.

  • The Court is not precluded from considering ancillary issues and analyzing the interpretation of labor law concepts and principles in a Rule 45 review of labor cases.

  • The NLRC may be found to have committed grave abuse of discretion if it overlooks the legal implications of attendant circumstances in making its decision.

  • Failure to adequately perform duties and responsibilities known to a probationary employee constitutes a justifiable basis for non-regularization.