Philippine court examines how performance reviews affect employment status changes
The Court of Appeals in the Philippines recently dealt with a case examining the legitimacy of a worker's dismissal during probationary employment.
The case stemmed from a worker's appeal before the Court of Appeals after her initial complaint was dismissed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), a quasi-judicial body that handles employment disputes in the Philippines.
The worker challenged the NLRC's decision to uphold her dismissal, arguing that she had automatically become a regular employee because her termination notice was given after her probationary period had ended. She sought various claims including unpaid salaries, separation pay, backwages, damages, and attorney's fees.
At the centre of this case were questions about the timing of performance evaluations, the impact of medical leave on service of termination notices, and the circumstances under which probationary employment could extend beyond its standard period.
The employment relationship started on 18 July 2019, when the worker began her probationary period. Under Philippine labour law, probationary employment typically cannot exceed six months, which meant her probationary period was set to end on 18 January 2020.
On 8 January 2020, the employer conducted a performance evaluation. As stated in the court decision: "[the worker] received an overall performance grade of 1.24, while the passing grade was 2.5."
During this evaluation, the worker received her Performance Report and was informed that she did not meet the standards for regularisation. The court noted: "As early as 8 January 2020, when [the worker] received the report, she was aware that she would not be regularised."
The sequence of events following the performance evaluation proved critical to the case's outcome.
The court records showed that "[the employer] could not be faulted for failing to personally serve the notice of termination on or before 18 January 2020 because [the worker] went on medical leave a day after her performance evaluation."
The worker's medical leave was initially scheduled from 9 January 2020 until 13 January 2020. However, she did not report for work on 14 January 2020 as expected, and only returned on 20 January 2020, which was when she received her termination notice.
The court found this timing detail significant, noting that the employer could only give the worker her termination notice when she returned to work.
In examining the case, the Court of Appeals reviewed whether the NLRC had committed any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the worker's complaint.
The court explained that such abuse of discretion occurs when a tribunal "exercises judgment capriciously and whimsically, which is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction."
The court found that both the Labour Arbiter, who initially heard the case, and the NLRC had based their decisions on substantial evidence. As stated in the decision: "Based on the above, we agree with the findings of both the Labour Arbiter and the NLRC that there was no illegal dismissal."
Given this finding, the Court of Appeals ruled: "there is no cogent reason for the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari as there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC."
Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and upheld the previous rulings that had found no illegal dismissal.