CALS Poultry Supply Corporation and Danilo Yap vs. Alfredo Roco and Candelaria Roco

An employee claiming illegal dismissal must first convincingly establish that he was dismissed; absent proof of termination or prevention from returning to work, the claim fails, and the employer’s burden to prove just cause is not triggered. A probationary employee’s six-month period is computed from the date of appointment to the same calendar date of the sixth month following; termination on the last day of that period is within probation, so the employee does not attain regular status.

CALS Poultry Supply Corporation is engaged in selling dressed chicken and related products and is managed by Danilo Yap. It employed Alfredo Roco as a driver and, later, Candelaria Roco and Edna Roco as helpers in its chicken dressing plant. The dispute concerns complaints for illegal dismissal and money claims, governed by the Labor Code’s provisions on probationary employment and dismissal, including Article 281 and the Omnibus Rules’ notice requirement.

CALS Poultry Supply Corporation, engaged in the business of selling dressed chicken and other related products and managed by Danilo Yap, hired Alfredo Roco as its driver on March 15, 1984. On the same date, CALS hired Edna Roco, Alfredo’s sister, as a helper in the dressing room. On May 16, 1995, it hired Candelaria Roco, another sister, as a helper at its chicken dressing plant on a probationary basis.

Alfredo applied for and was granted a leave of absence for the period from January 4 to 18, 1996. He did not report back for work after the leave expired. On March 12, 1996, CALS, through its Chief Maintenance Officer Rolando Sibugan, sent him a letter inquiring whether he still intended to resume work; Alfredo did not respond despite receipt. Alfredo claimed, however, that he was dismissed on January 20, 1996 when he reported for work and was told by Elvie Acantelado, Danilo Yap’s secretary, that he was already separated from employment. He also claimed that CALS’ lawyer, Atty. Myra Cristela A. Yngcong, offered him P30,000.00 in exchange for executing a letter of voluntary resignation. Atty. Yngcong denied the offer and stated that she first met Alfredo on April 23, 1996. CALS maintained that it learned of the complaint only on April 4, 1996, when it received the Notification and Summons dated March 25, 1996.

Candelaria was hired on May 16, 1995 on a probationary basis and her services were terminated on November 15, 1995 due to poor work performance. She did not measure up to the work standards for dressing chicken. The standards required by the National Meat Inspection Commission for dressing plants with Double “AA” Rating were described in the March 7, 1997 affidavit of Rolly Villaeba, CALS’ Cold Storage Supervisor: Candelaria frequently failed to observe the allowable 1.5-inch cut in the surgical incision of the chicken butt, frequently mishandled the pull-out of chicken parts and damaged them, and frequently completed her assigned tasks in 20 to 25 seconds when the required time limit was 8 to 10 seconds, causing premature decomposition or bacterial or salmonella contamination. CALS’ management therefore deemed it best to terminate her probationary employment.

Edna Roco also filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging that on June 26, 1996 she was reassigned to washing dirty sacks and transferred from night shift to daytime duties, which she considered harassment, and that she did not report for work. The Labor Arbiter found that she began absenting herself on June 25, 1996 and did not respond to a July 1, 1996 memo requiring her to report for work immediately.

The complaint filed on March 5, 1996 alleged that Alfredo and Candelaria were illegally dismissed on January 20, 1996 and November 5, 1996, respectively, and that both were underpaid. In their position papers, the complainants claimed they were not given overtime pay, premium pay for holidays, premium pay for rest days, 13th month pay, allowances, or separation pay. The Labor Arbiter found that Alfredo was not dismissed, that Candelaria was unsuited for the work for which she was engaged, and that Edna had absented herself; the NLRC affirmed. The Court of Appeals, however, credited Alfredo’s assertion that he was told of his dismissal and held that Candelaria had become a regular employee because her termination came four days after the six-month probationary period; it found that Edna had abandoned her work.

• Alfredo Roco’s Dismissal: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling Alfredo illegally dismissed; he did not verify with Danilo Yap whether his employment was terminated, Elvie Acantelado denied telling him he was dismissed, and the alleged P30,000.00 offer was uncorroborated and denied by Atty. Yngcong.
• March 12, 1996 Letter: Petitioners maintained that the letter asking Alfredo to report for duty was not an afterthought because CALS learned of the complaint only on April 4, 1996, upon receipt of the Notification and Summons dated March 25, 1996.
• Candelaria Roco’s Probation: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erroneously computed the six-month probationary period; Candelaria’s termination on November 15, 1995 was exactly the last day of the period, so she had not attained regular status.
• Money Claims: Petitioners claimed the Court of Appeals erred in ruling respondents entitled to money claims.
• Ulterior Motive: Petitioners imputed an ulterior motive to the complaint, claiming it was manipulated by Domingo Roco, against whom CALS filed criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

• Alfredo’s Dismissal: Respondents maintained that Alfredo was dismissed on January 20, 1996 when he refused to accept P30,000.00 offered by CALS’ lawyer in exchange for executing a letter of voluntary resignation.
• Candelaria’s Dismissal: Candelaria averred that she was terminated without cause from her job as helper after serving more than six months as a probationary employee.
• Money Claims: Respondents claimed they were not given overtime pay, premium pay for holidays, premium pay for rest days, 13th month pay, allowances, and separation pay.
• Afterthought: Alfredo asserted that CALS’ March 12, 1996 letter asking him to report for duty was an afterthought because it was sent after he filed his complaint on March 5, 1996.

• Illegal Dismissal of Alfredo Roco: Whether Alfredo Roco was illegally dismissed or whether he failed to establish that he was dismissed.
• Probationary Employment of Candelaria Roco: Whether Candelaria Roco was illegally dismissed or had become a regular employee after the six-month probationary period.
• Money Claims: Whether respondents are entitled to money claims.

• Illegal Dismissal of Alfredo Roco: No. Alfredo failed to establish convincingly that he was dismissed; no notice of termination was given and no proof showed he was prevented from working after his leave, while CALS asked him to resume work.
• Probationary Employment of Candelaria Roco: No. Her services were terminated within and not beyond the six-month probationary period, computed from date of appointment to the same calendar date of the sixth month following; she therefore did not attain regular status.
• Money Claims: No. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC decisions denying the claims were reinstated.

• Illegal Dismissal of Alfredo Roco: The Court reasoned that Alfredo did not convincingly establish dismissal. No notice of termination was given; there was no proof except his self-serving assertion that he was prevented from working after his leave ended on January 18, 1996. CALS notified him by letter dated March 12, 1996 to resume work. The Court of Appeals relied on Alfredo’s allegation that Elvie Acantelado told him he was dismissed, but Alfredo did not verify with Danilo Yap, and Acantelado denied the statement. The alleged P30,000.00 offer was uncorroborated and denied by Atty. Yngcong, who said she first met Alfredo on April 23, 1996. CALS learned of the complaint only on April 4, 1996, so the March 12 letter was not an afterthought. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC findings that Alfredo and Candelaria were not dismissed are entitled to great weight. The Court cited Chong Guan Trading vs. NLRC, where no dismissal was found because the employee was not notified and not prevented from returning; failure to work due to misunderstanding did not establish dismissal or abandonment, and each party bore its own loss.
• Probationary Employment of Candelaria Roco: Article 281 provides that probationary employment shall not exceed six months from the date the employee started working, unless covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period; services may be terminated for just cause or when the employee fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer at the time of engagement; an employee allowed to work after the probationary period is considered regular. The Court agreed with CALS, the Labor Arbiter, and the NLRC that Candelaria’s services were terminated within and not beyond the six-month probationary period. In Cebu Royal vs. Deputy Minister of Labor, the six-month period is reckoned from the date of appointment up to the same calendar date of the sixth month following. Candelaria was hired on May 16, 1995 and terminated on November 15, 1995; the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that she became regular four days before termination was erroneous. The Court of Appeals did not disagree with the NLRC’s finding that Candelaria was dismissed because she did not qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known to her at the time of employment. The standards were required by the National Meat Inspection Commission for dressing plants with Double “AA” Rating and were described in Rolly Villaeba’s affidavit; Candelaria failed to comply.
• Money Claims: The Labor Arbiter denied the money claims for lack of substantiation, finding that CALS presented evidence showing the complainants received correct salaries and related benefits. The NLRC affirmed. Because the Supreme Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter and NLRC decisions, the denial of money claims stands.

• Illegal dismissal — proof of dismissal — An employee claiming illegal dismissal must first convincingly establish that he was dismissed. Absent proof of a notice of termination or of being prevented from returning to work, a self-serving assertion of dismissal does not suffice. The employer’s burden to prove just cause arises only after dismissal is established. Applied to Alfredo: no notice, no proof of prevention, and CALS asked him to resume.
• Probationary employment under Article 281 — Probationary employment shall not exceed six months from the date the employee started working, unless covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. Services may be terminated for just cause or when the employee fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer at the time of engagement. An employee allowed to work after the probationary period is considered regular. Applied to Candelaria: she was terminated within the six-month period for failure to meet standards made known to her.
• Computation of six-month probationary period — The six-month probationary period is reckoned from the date of appointment up to the same calendar date of the sixth month following. Termination on the last day of that period is within probation, so the employee does not attain regular status. Applied to Candelaria: her November 15, 1995 termination was within and not beyond the six-month period.
• Findings of fact of labor tribunals — Findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, especially when affirmed by the NLRC, are entitled to great weight. The Supreme Court restored their findings that Alfredo and Candelaria were not dismissed after the Court of Appeals reversed them.
• No dismissal from misunderstanding; each party bears own loss — Where the employee’s failure to work is due to a misunderstanding between management and employee, and there is no intent to dismiss and no intent to abandon, each party must bear his own loss, placing them on equal footing. The Court cited Chong Guan Trading vs. NLRC in finding Alfredo was not dismissed.

• "From the facts established, we are of the view that Alfredo Roco has not established convincingly that he was dismissed. No notice of termination was given to him by CALS. There is no proof at all, except his self-serving assertion, that he was prevented from working after the end of his leave of absence on January 18, 1996." — This passage states the ratio for Alfredo’s case: the employee failed to prove dismissal, so no illegal dismissal was established.
• "We agree with CALS' contention as upheld by both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that Candelaria's services was terminated within and not beyond the 6-month probationary period." — This is the core ruling on Candelaria’s probationary employment, reversing the Court of Appeals’ finding that she had become a regular employee.
• "In Cebu Royal v. Deputy Minister of Labor, our computation of the 6-month probationary period is reckoned from the date of appointment up to the same calendar date of the 6th month following." — This excerpt supplies the controlling computation rule for the six-month probationary period.
• "Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that Alfredo, as well as Candelaria Roco, was not dismissed. Their findings of fact are entitled to great weight." — This passage explains why the Supreme Court restored the labor tribunals’ factual findings over the Court of Appeals’ contrary conclusion.

• Chong Guan Trading vs. NLRC, 172 SCRA 831 (1989) — Cited by the Supreme Court to support the finding that Alfredo was never dismissed; where the employee was not notified of dismissal and not prevented from returning, and his failure to work was due to misunderstanding, no dismissal or abandonment is established, and each party bears his own loss.
• Cebu Royal vs. Deputy Minister of Labor, 153 SCRA 38 (1987) — Cited for the computation of the six-month probationary period from the date of appointment to the same calendar date of the sixth month following; an employee allowed to work after the probationary period becomes regular. Applied to Candelaria to reverse the Court of Appeals’ finding that she had become regular.

• Article 281, Labor Code — Probationary employment shall not exceed six months from the date the employee started working, unless covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. Services may be terminated for just cause or when the employee fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer at the time of engagement. An employee allowed to work after the probationary period is considered regular. Applied to Candelaria: she was terminated within the six-month period for failure to meet standards made known to her, so she did not become a regular employee.
• Section 2, Rule XVI, Book V, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code — Any employer seeking to dismiss a worker shall furnish a written notice stating the particular acts or omissions constituting the grounds for dismissal; in abandonment of work, the notice shall be served at the worker’s last known address. The Court of Appeals invoked this provision in finding a due process violation, but the Supreme Court found no dismissal was established, so the notice issue did not control the outcome.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Ynares-Santiago, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.