FACTS:

The petitioner, Myra M. Moral, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against her employer, Momentum Properties Management Corporation (respondent), before the National Capital Region (NCR) Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The petitioner alleged that she was hired by the respondent as a probationary employee and was informed of her dismissal without any justifiable cause or notice. The respondent denied the illegal dismissal allegation and stated that the petitioner was subjected to evaluation procedures and failed to meet the performance standards necessary for regularization. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring her dismissal as illegal and ordered the respondent to pay backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

The petitioner in this case was previously employed by respondent company as a probationary employee. After six months of probationary employment, the respondent had the option to either hire the petitioner as a regular employee or terminate her services. However, the respondent decided to dismiss the petitioner due to her poor performance evaluation. The petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that she was terminated without just cause and due process. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the respondent failed to present evidence to prove that the dismissal was valid. The Labor Arbiter awarded the petitioner separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, as well as backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The respondent appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which modified the decision by removing the award for moral and exemplary damages and reducing the total amount awarded to the petitioner. The NLRC upheld the view that the petitioner was unjustly dismissed but ruled that she failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support the award for moral and exemplary damages. The respondent sought to reverse the NLRC decision by filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, annulled the NLRC decision, and ordered the respondent to pay nominal damages to the petitioner for failure to observe procedural due process. The respondent argued that the text messages presented by the petitioner as evidence were not properly authenticated and that the payroll document should not be used to establish the petitioner's employment status. The Court of Appeals held that the petitioner was a probationary employee and that her poor performance evaluation justified the termination of her services.

Facts:

The petitioner was initially hired by the respondent as a probationary employee. As a probationary employee, she was informed that her employment would be subject to evaluation in order to determine her suitability for regularization. After completing her probationary period, the respondent refused to regularize the petitioner and terminated her employment. The respondent notified the petitioner of her dismissal through a series of text messages, rather than a formal written notice. The petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, among others, which was dismissed by the labor arbiter. The petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which reversed the labor arbiter's ruling. The respondent then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the NLRC's decision that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. The Court of Appeals held that while the respondent had the right to refuse regularization, the termination was not carried out in accordance with the law due to the lack of a formal written notice. The Court of Appeals awarded nominal damages to the petitioner. The respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting them to file a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner was illegally dismissed by the respondent.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals had sufficient basis to annul and set aside the NLRC's decision declaring the petitioner as illegally dismissed.

3. Whether or not the employer complied with the requirement of communicating the regularization standards to the probationary employee at the time of engagement.

4. Whether or not the probationary employee failed to fulfill the requirements of her position, justifying the termination of her employment.

5. Whether the employer exercised its right to refuse to hire the petitioner on a permanent basis due to her failure to comply with the regularization standards.

6. Whether the manner by which the petitioner's dismissal was carried out was in accordance with the standards set forth under the law.

7. The issue in this case is whether or not the amount of nominal damages should be fixed at P30,000.00.

RULING:

1. The Court finds the petitioner's claim of illegal dismissal meritless. The Court is not a trier of facts, but exceptions to this rule apply, including when there are conflicting factual findings between the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and the Court of Appeals. In this case, the Court deems it necessary to re-examine the facts to determine whether the Court of Appeals had sufficient basis to annul and set aside the NLRC decision.

2. The Court ruled that the petitioner was a probationary employee and could be dismissed for failure to qualify according to the standards set by the employer. The employer has the right to observe the fitness and competency of a probationary employee during the probationary period. If the employer fails to inform the employee of the reasonable standards for regularization at the time of engagement, the employee is considered a regular employee. In this case, the petitioner failed to meet the standards set by the employer, as indicated by poor ratings in performance evaluations and a performance appraisal report. Hence, the respondent had the right to dismiss the petitioner.

3. The employer complied with the requirement of communicating the regularization standards to the probationary employee at the time of engagement. The Employment Agreement clearly indicated that the employee was hired as a probationary employee for a period of six months and outlined the schedule for performance appraisals before regularization.

4. The probationary employee failed to fulfill the requirements of her position as a Leasing Assistant. Her performance evaluations showed substandard results, including low scores on aptitude tests, questionable answers in a language skills assessment, and errors in drafting a memorandum. Her overall assessment in key result areas and behavioral factors also showed room for improvement. Therefore, the termination of her probationary employment was justified.

5. Yes. The employer had the right to refuse to hire the petitioner as a regular employee based on her failure to comply with the regularization standards. As long as the employer has made known the regularization standards at the time of engagement, the refusal to regularize the employee is within the scope of the law.

6. No. The termination of a probationary employee requires a different procedure. The usual two-notice rule does not apply. The employer must serve a written notice to the employee within a reasonable time from the effective date of termination. In this case, the petitioner's dismissal was carried out through a series of text messages, which did not comply with the mandated procedure. Therefore, the employer is liable to pay nominal damages.

7. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. Thus, it upheld the fixing of the amount of nominal damages at P30,000.00.

PRINCIPLES:

• The Court is not a trier of facts, but exceptions apply when there are conflicting factual findings.

• A probationary employee can be dismissed for failure to qualify according to the employer's standards.

• To be considered a probationary employee, the employer must inform the employee of the reasonable standards for regularization at the time of engagement.

• If the employer fails to inform the employee of the standards, the employee is considered a regular employee.

• A probationary employee enjoys security of tenure but can be terminated for just cause, authorized cause, or failure to qualify according to the employer's standards.

• An employer is required to communicate the regularization standards to the probationary employee at the time of engagement. Failure to do so results in the probationary employee being deemed a regular employee.

• The employer must exert reasonable efforts to apprise the probationary employee of the expectations and requirements during the probationary period.

• A probationary employee's failure to fulfill the requirements of the position can be a valid cause for termination of employment.

• An employer has the right to choose who will be hired and who will be denied employment.

• An employer may set a probationary period within which to test and observe the conduct of an employee before hiring them on a permanent basis.

• The termination of a probationary employee requires a different procedure than a regular employee.

• The violation of an employee's right to statutory due process warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages.

• The fixing of the amount of nominal damages is within the discretion of the court.

• The amount of nominal damages may vary depending on the circumstances of the case.