View full case

MARIA CARMELA P. UMALI v. HOBBYWING SOLUTIONS

FACTS:

Maria Carmela P. Umali filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Hobbywing Solutions, Inc. and its general manager, Pate Tan. Umali claimed that she started working for the respondent in June 2012 without signing an employment contract. In January 2013, she was asked to sign two employment contracts, one for a period of five months and another for three months. On February 18, 2013, Umali was informed that her employment had ended and was required to sign an exit clearance. The respondent argued that Umali was hired on a probationary basis and her employment was extended. She was offered a regular position after receiving a commendable rating, but she declined. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but the NLRC ruled in favor of Umali, declaring her a regular employee and ordering her reinstatement and the payment of backwages. The Court of Appeals overturned the NLRC's decision, stating that Umali failed to prove her dismissal. Umali then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court to appeal the Court of Appeals' decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner has attained regular employment status

  2. Whether there was a valid extension of the probationary period

  3. Whether the petitioner was illegally dismissed;

  4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and backwages.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the petitioner has attained regular employment status. The petitioner had already served beyond the allowable period for probationary employment, as stipulated under Article 281 of the Labor Code. Thus, she is entitled to the rights and privileges of a regular employee.

  2. No, there was no valid extension of the probationary period. The extension was made after the lapse of the original agreed period, and there was no evaluation upon the expiration of the probationary period. Therefore, the extension was not justified and should not be recognized.

  3. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC ruled that the petitioner was illegally dismissed and held her entitled to the twin relief of reinstatement and backwages.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Supreme Court does not entertain questions of facts in a petition for review on certiorari, except when there are recognized exceptions such as when the findings of fact are conflicting or when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties.

  • In cases involving termination of employment, the employer has the burden of proving that the employee was not illegally dismissed. Failure to discharge this burden would mean that the dismissal is not justified and, therefore, illegal.

  • An employee who is allowed to work even after the lapse of the probationary period shall be considered regularized and is entitled to security of tenure.

  • Contracts of employment should reflect the true intention of the parties at the time of their execution. Any discrepancy or inconsistency in the dates of the contracts may cast doubt on their authenticity and credibility.

  • If there is disparity in the dates of the contracts submitted by the employer, it may indicate that the contracts were only made up to create a semblance of legality in the employment and severance of the employee.

  • An employee who works beyond the probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.

  • The extension of the probationary period is an exception and should be justified; the burden of proof is on the employer.

  • Without a valid ground, any extension of the probationary period shall be taken against the employer, as it thwarts the attainment of security of tenure.

  • An employee who is unjustly dismissed is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, full backwages, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent.

  • Illegal dismissal: The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of the NLRC that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. This suggests that the employer failed to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements under the Labor Code and other related laws.

  • Right to reinstatement and backwages: The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC's ruling that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and backwages. This principle emphasizes the protection and promotion of workers' rights in the employment relationship.