Caparoso vs CA

Probationary Employment

Facts:

 Composite is a supplier of confectioneries Caparoso and Quindipan were Composite’s deliverymen. Petitioners were dismissed from the service and subsequently filed illegal dismissal complaint. Respondents alleged that petitioners were both hired as deliverymen, initially for three months and then on a month-to-month basis and the termination from employment resulted from the expiration of their contracts of employment on 8 October 1999. Labor Arbiter - petitioners are regular employees of respondents NLRC- Reversed LA decision CA- affirmed the NLRC’s decision. The Court of Appeals held that respondents’ manpower requirement varies from month to month depending on the demand from their clients for their products. Respondents’ manpower requirement determines the period of their employees’ services. Respondents employed petitioners for the purpose of addressing a temporary manpower shortage. 

 Issues :

1. Whether petitioners are regular employees of respondents

 2. Whether respondents are guilty of illegal dismissal. 

Held:

Petitioners are Not Regular Employees Under Article 280 of the Labor Code, a regular employee is (1) one who is engaged to perform activities that are necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer, or (2) a casual employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which he is employed. However, even if an employee is engaged to perform activities that are necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer, it does not preclude the fixing of employment for a definite period. We agree with the Court of Appeals that in this case, the fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. The Court of Appeals noted that there was no indication of force, duress, or improper pressure exerted on petitioners when they signed the contracts. Further, there was no proof that respondents were regularly engaged in hiring workers for work for a minimum period of five months to prevent the regularization of their employees. Petitioners’ Employment is akin to Probationary Employment At most, petitioners’ employment for less than six months can be considered probationary. Article 281 of the Labor Code provides: Art. 281. Probationary Employment. - Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. Petitioners were hired on 11 May 1999, initially for three months. After the expiration of their contracts, petitioners were hired on a month-to-month basis. Their contracts of employment ended on 8 October 1999. Hence, they were employed for a total of five months. Their employment did not even exceed six months to entitle them to become regular employees. . Petitioners were not Illegally Dismissed from Employment Petitioners’ terms of employment are governed by their fixed-term contracts. Petitioners’ fixed-term employment contracts had expired. They were not illegally dismissed from employment.