DACODECO vs. Pasawa

A probationary employee may be validly dismissed under Article 281 of the Labor Code only if (1) there is just cause, or (2) the employee fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known to the employee at the time of engagement; mere subjective dissatisfaction with performance is insufficient if the standards were not previously communicated.

The case involves the termination of a General Manager hired by a construction cooperative on a probationary basis. Following an evaluation committee's assessment of her performance as "average" and allegations of making false statements, the employee was dismissed, leading to a complaint for illegal dismissal. The dispute raised significant issues regarding the procedural requirements for filing petitions for certiorari and the substantive protections afforded to probationary employees under Philippine labor law.

• Petitioner Davao Contractors Development Cooperative (DACODECO) is a duly registered cooperative engaged in the construction business.
• On January 5, 2004, petitioner hired respondent Marilyn A. Pasawa as General Manager with a monthly salary of P6,500.
• Board Resolution No. 369-2003 indicated that respondent was hired on a probationary basis.
• In May 2004, the Board of Directors formed an evaluation committee to assess respondent's performance.
• The evaluation committee reported that respondent's services were "average," she lacked construction knowledge, and she allegedly made a false statement in the 2004 General Assembly.
• Based on the committee's recommendation, the Board dismissed respondent effective May 31, 2004, citing her failure to meet "the working standard of our cooperative."
• Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, asserting she had established proper systems for business operations, improved revenues, and rectified past errors, and contending she was a regular employee, not probationary.
• The Labor Arbiter ruled respondent was a probationary employee but held her dismissal illegal because the board resolution did not specify or inform her of the reasonable standards by which her advancement to regular status would be gauged.
• The Labor Arbiter ordered petitioner to pay separation pay equivalent to one month salary and backwages totaling P68,250.00.
• Petitioner appealed to the NLRC but failed to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping to its memorandum of appeal.
• The NLRC dismissed the appeal for non-perfection.
• Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed because: (1) Edgar L. Chavez, who signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, was only authorized to represent the cooperative before the NLRC, not the Court of Appeals, and the board resolution was not certified by the Board Secretary; and (2) the petition failed to indicate the material dates required under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.

• Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari despite substantial compliance with procedural requirements.
• It argues that Edgar L. Chavez was duly authorized by the Board of Directors to represent the cooperative, as evidenced by a board resolution.
• It asserts substantial compliance with the statement of material dates by indicating when the NLRC denied its appeal and motion for reconsideration, and when it received the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
• It claims the dismissal was valid because respondent failed to meet reasonable standards for employment and because of loss of trust and confidence.

• Respondent counters that the petition for certiorari was properly dismissed for failure to have the verification and certification of non-forum shopping signed by a person authorized to represent the cooperative before the Court of Appeals.
• She argues that the petition failed to state the material dates required by the Rules of Court.
• She maintains that even if technicalities were set aside, the petition would still fail because petitioner failed to inform her of the reasonable standards for regularization at the time of engagement.
• She asserts that loss of trust and confidence cannot be invoked as a ground for dismissal because it was raised belatedly and lacks factual basis.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by a person not authorized to represent the petitioner before the appellate court.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for failure to state the material dates required under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the dismissal of the probationary employee was valid under Article 281 of the Labor Code on the grounds of failure to meet reasonable standards and loss of trust and confidence.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for certiorari.
  • The Court held that under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari must be verified and accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
  • For juridical entities, the certification must be signed by an authorized person who has personal knowledge of the facts required to be established.
  • Here, Edgar L. Chavez was only authorized to represent petitioner before the NLRC, not the Court of Appeals, and the board resolution was not certified or authenticated by the Corporate Secretary.
  • Additionally, the petition failed to indicate the material dates required under Rule 65, specifically the date of receipt of the NLRC resolution and the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration.
  • Failure to comply with these requirements is sufficient ground for dismissal.
• Substantive:
  • Even if the procedural lapses were waived, the petition merits dismissal on substantive grounds.
  • Under Article 281 of the Labor Code, a probationary employee may be terminated for just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known to him by the employer at the time of engagement.
  • The burden of proving valid cause rests on the employer.
  • Petitioner failed to present proof that respondent was duly notified at the time of her employment of the reasonable standards she needed to comply with for continued employment.
  • Furthermore, loss of trust and confidence cannot be invoked as it was mentioned only for the first time in the memorandum of appeal to the NLRC, not in the position paper before the Labor Arbiter, and the evaluation committee did not elaborate on its finding regarding the alleged false statement.
  • The dismissal was therefore illegal.

• Probationary Employment under Article 281 of the Labor Code — Defines probationary employment and establishes that a probationary employee may be terminated only for just cause or failure to meet reasonable standards made known at the time of engagement. The employer must communicate the standards for regularization at the start of employment; otherwise, dismissal based on failure to meet such standards is invalid.
• Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping for Juridical Entities — While the plaintiff or principal party must sign the certification, in cases of juridical entities, an authorized representative with personal knowledge of the facts may sign, provided there is a board resolution specifically authorizing such representation for the particular proceeding, certified by the Corporate Secretary.
• Material Dates Requirement in Rule 65 Petitions — A petition for certiorari must state three material dates: (1) the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received; (2) the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration was filed; and (3) the date when notice of the denial thereof was received. Failure to comply is a ground for dismissal.
• Loss of Trust and Confidence as Ground for Dismissal — To be valid, this ground must be based on a willful breach of trust founded on clearly established facts, not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices, or suspicion. It must be alleged in the appropriate pleading and supported by substantial evidence.

• "Under Article 281 of the Labor Code, a probationary employee can be legally dismissed either: (1) for a just cause; or (2) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards made known to him by the employer at the start of the employment."
• "Nonetheless, the power of the employer to terminate the services of an employee on probation is not without limitations. First, this power must be exercised in accordance with the specific requirements of the contract. Second, the dissatisfaction on the part of the employer must be real and in good faith, not feigned so as to circumvent the contract or the law. Third, there must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal."
• "In termination cases, the burden of proving just or valid cause for dismissing an employee rests on the employer."
• "Here, petitioner did not present proof that respondent was duly notified, at the time of her employment, of the reasonable standards she needed to comply with for her continued employment."
• "A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer."

• LDP Marketing, Inc. v. Monter — Cited for the definition and requirements of a certification of non-forum shopping.
• Digital Microwave Corporation v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the rule that the plaintiff or principal party must sign the certification of non-forum shopping because he has actual knowledge of whether he has initiated similar actions.
• Expertravel & Tours, Inc. v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the rule that in case the plaintiff is a juridical entity, the certification may be signed by an authorized person who has personal knowledge of the facts.
• Sapitan v. JB Line Bicol Express, Inc. — Cited in relation to the authority of a representative to sign verification and certification.
• Lapid v. Laurea — Cited for the requirement of stating material dates in petitions for certiorari under Rule 65.
• Tambong v. R. Jorge Development Corporation and Cuñada v. Drilon — Cited for the rule that failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 65 is sufficient ground for dismissal.
• Dusit Hotel Nikko v. Gatbonton — Cited for the rule that the burden of proving just or valid cause for dismissal rests on the employer.
• Athenna International Manpower Services, Inc. v. Villanos and Secon Philippines, Ltd. v. NLRC — Cited for the requirement that reasonable standards for regularization must be made known to the employee at the time of engagement.
• AMA Computer College, Inc. v. Garay and C.F. Sharp & Co., Inc. v. Zialcita — Cited for the requirements of loss of trust and confidence as a ground for dismissal.

• Article 281 of the Labor Code (Probationary Employment) — Governs the termination of probationary employees and requires that reasonable standards for regularization be made known at the time of engagement.
• Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court — Requires that a petition for certiorari be accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
• Rule 65 of the Rules of Court — Governs petitions for certiorari and requires the statement of material dates.