Armando Aliling vs Wide Wide World

Facts:

On June 2, 2004, respondent Wide Wide World Express Corp. (WWWEC) employed petitioner Armando Aliling as account executive (Seafright Sales). The employment was for a six-month probationary period. On Oct. 6, 2004, respondent terminated petitioner’s services owing to his “non-satisfactory performance” during his probationary period. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal alleging, among others, that at the time of his engagement, respondent did make known to him the standards under which he will qualify as a regular employee. 

Issue:

 Is there merit to this contention? 

Held:

 Yes.To note, the June 2, 2004 letter-offer itself states that the regularization standards or the performance norms to be used are still to be agreed upon by Aliling and his supervisor. WWWEC has failed to prove that an agreement as regards thereto has been reached. Clearly then, there were actually no performance standards to speak of. And lest it be overlooked, Aliling was assigned to GX Trucking sales, an activity entirely different from the Seafreight Sales he was originally hired and trained for. Thus, at the time of his engagement, the standards relative to his assignment with GX Sales could not have plausibly been communicated to him as he was under Seafreight Sales. x Respondents further allege that San Mateo’s email dated July 16, 2004 shows that the standards for his regularization were made known to petitioner Aliling at the time of his engagement. In that email message, San Mateo reminded Aliling of the sales quota he ought to meet as a condition for his continued employment, i.e., that the GX trucks should already be 80 percent full by Aug. 5, 2004. Contrary to respondents’ contention, San Mateo’s email cannot support their allegation on Aliling being informed of the standards for his continued employment, such as the sales quota, at the time of his engagement. As it were, the email message was sent to Aliling more than a month after he signed his employment contract with WWWEC. Section 6 of the Implementing Rules of Book VI, Rule VIII-A of the Code specifically requires the employer to inform the probationary employee of such reasonable standards at the time of his engagement, not at any time later; else, the latter shall be considered a regular employee. Thus, pursuant to the explicit provision of Article 281 of the Labor Code, Section 6(d) of the Implementing Rules of Book VI, Rule VIII-A of the Labor Code and settled jurisprudence, petitioner Aliling is deemed a regular employee as of June 11, 2004, the date of his employment contract