Canadian vs Dalangin

Facts: 

RESPONDENT Bart Dalangin, Jr. was hired only in the previous month by petitioner Canadian Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. as immigration and legal manager. He was placed on probationary status for six months. In a memorandum dated Oct. 27, 2001, his employment was terminated and he was declared unfit and unqualified, for obstinacy and utter disregard of company policies; lack of concern for the company’s interest; lack of enthusiasm toward work; and lack of interest in focusing on his relationship with his co-employees. The Court of Appeals (CA) viewed Dalangin’s dismissal as arbitrary considering that the petitioner had a very little time to determine his fitness for the job. 

Issue:

 Does this view find merit?

 Held:

 No.The essence of a probationary period of employment fundamentally lies in the purpose or objective of both the employer and the employee during the period. While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment, the latter seeks to prove to the former that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for permanent employment. As the Court explained in International Catholic Migration Commission, “the word ‘probationary,’ as used to describe the period of employment, implies the purpose of the term or period, but not its length.” The fact that Dalangin was separated from the service after only about four weeks does not necessarily mean that his separation from the service is without basis. Contrary to the CA’s conclusions, we find substantial evidence indicating that the company was justified in terminating Dalangin’s employment, however brief it had been. Time and again, we have emphasized that substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Dalangin overlooks the fact, wittingly or unwittingly, that he offered glimpses of his own behavior and actuations during his four-week stay with the company; he betrayed his negative attitude and regard for the company, his co-employees and his work. We, therefore, disagree with the CA that the company could not have fully determined Dalangin’s performance barely one month into his employment. As we said in International Catholic Migration Commission, the probationary term or period denotes its purpose but not its length. To our mind, four weeks was enough for the company to assess Dalangin’s fitness for the job and he was found wanting. In separating Dalangin from the service before the situation got worse, we find the company not liable for illegal dismissal.