Held
No, Mabel was not illegally dismissed because the extension of her probationary period by voluntary agreement is allowed under Philippine labor laws, as held in Mariwasa Manufacturing v. Leogardo, G.R. No. 74246, and consistent with Article 296 of the Labor Code.
Explanation
The law generally limits probationary employment to six months from the date the employee started working, except in apprenticeship cases. During this period, the employer may terminate the employee if the employee fails to meet reasonable standards for regularization that were made known at the start of employment. If the employee continues to work beyond the probationary period, they are considered a regular employee with security of tenure.
However, the Supreme Court in Mariwasa Manufacturing v. Leogardo recognized that the probationary period may be extended by mutual agreement between the employer and employee. Such an extension is considered an act of liberality or a second chance for the employee to prove their fitness for regular employment. This voluntary extension effectively waives the employee's right to automatic regularization after six months if they still fail to meet the standards during the extended period. The Court found no law prohibiting such an extension and held that it does not violate the employee's security of tenure.
The key elements are that the extension must be voluntary and agreed upon by both parties, and the employer must have made known the reasonable standards for regularization at the start of employment. The extension is an exception to the general rule and must not be a stratagem to avoid the employee's regularization.
Application to the facts
In this case, First Vault Bank hired Mabel as a probationary teller and provided her with the complete set of reasonable standards for regularization at the time of engagement, satisfying the requirement that standards be made known. When it became apparent by July 2, 2026, that Mabel did not meet these standards, the Bank's human resource manager asked Mabel if she wished to extend her probationary period for another 30 days to demonstrate her potential. Mabel accepted this proposal and signed a memorandum extending her probationary period.
This voluntary agreement to extend the probationary period aligns with the Supreme Court's ruling in Mariwasa Manufacturing v. Leogardo, where such an extension was deemed lawful and not a violation of labor laws. The extension was not a stratagem but a genuine opportunity for Mabel to improve her performance. The Bank then terminated Mabel's employment before the end of the extended probationary period due to her consistent failure to meet the standards.
Since the extension was voluntary and properly documented, and the termination was based on failure to meet reasonable standards made known at the start, Mabel's dismissal was lawful. The original six-month probationary period does not bar the extension by mutual consent, and the termination after the extension is valid.
- a constitutional provision is among the sources and controls over any conflicting statute
"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."
"There is probationary employment where the employee, upon his engagement, is made to undergo a trial period during which the employer determines his fitness to qualify for regular employment based on reasonable standards made known to him at the time of engagement. Probationary employment shall be governed by the following rules: ... (b) Where the work is neither learnable nor apprenticeable, the period of probationary employment shall not exceed six months reckoned from the date the employee actually started working. (c) The services of an employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated on…
[[CASE HOLDING — Mariwasa Manufacturing v. Leogardo, G.R. No. 74246 (1989-01-26)]] "In both cases the parties' agreements in fact resulted in extensions of the period prescribed by law. That in this case the inability of the probationer to make the grade became apparent only at or about the end of the six-month period, hence an extension could not have been pre-arranged as was done in Buiser assumes no adverse significance... For aught that appears of record, the extension of Dequila's probation was ex gratia, an act of liberality on the part of his employer affording him a second chance to make good after having initially failed to prove his worth as an employee... Such an act cannot now unjustly be turned against said employer's account to compel it to keep on its payroll one who could not perform according to its work standards... By voluntarily agreeing to an extension of the probationary period, Dequila in effect waived any benefit attaching to the completion of said period if he still failed to make the grade during the period of extension. The Court finds nothing in the law which by any fair interpretation prohibits such a waiver." (Mariwasa Manufacturing v. Leogardo)
Laws retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.
- Article 296, Labor Relations
- Section 6, Issuances of the Department of Labor and Employment and its Attached Agencies
- Section 2, Issuances of the Department of Labor and Employment and its Attached Agencies
- Section 3, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
- Section 1, Issuances of the Department of Labor and Employment and its Attached Agencies
"In both cases the parties' agreements in fact resulted in extensions of the period prescribed by law. That in this case the inability of the probationer to make the grade became apparent only at or about the end of the six-month period, hence an extension could not have been pre-arranged as was done in _Buiser_ assumes no adverse significance, given the lack, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, of any indication that the extension to which Dequila gave his agreement was a mere stratagem of petitioners to avoid the legal consequences of a probationary period satisfactorily completed. For aught that appears o…
"This brings to the conclusion that the contracts were only made up to create a semblance of legality in the employment and severance of the petitioner. Unfortunately for the respondent, the significant details left unexplained only validated the petitioner's claim that she had served way beyond the allowable period for probationary employment and therefore has attained the status of regular employment. Article 281 of the Labor Code is pertinent. It provides: ART. 281. Probationary Employment. - Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working, unless it is covere…
Cases retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.