Nov.

21, 1884- May 21, 1985

GENERAL DIESEL POWER Corp hired LINA as a component mechanic and issued a
temporary employment, however she was made to work as parts clerk and secretary.
May 22, Manufacturing,
1985 respondent extended
contract of(G.R.
employment
providing a
Mariwasa
Inc. vs.LINAs
Leogardo
No 74246)
probationary
period of
Joaquin
A. Dequila
(or6 months.
Dequilla) was hired on probation by Mariwasa
On Nov. 21, 1985
terminated,utility
as management
decided
to end her
Manufacturing,
Inc. she
as was
a general
worker on
January
10,Probationary
1979.
Period.
After 6 months, he was informed that his work was unsatisfactory and
1986,
she was
probationary
periodToofgive
6 months,
June 5,chance,
1986, she
had Jan.20,
failed to
meet
the rehired,
required
standards.
him until
another
dismissed.
and was
with
Dequilas written consent, Mariwasa extended Dequilas
probationary period for another three months: from July 10 to
July 8, 1986, she lodged a complaint for illegal dismissal and then filed an amended
October 9, 1979. Dequilas performance, however, did not improve and

complaint on January 30, 1987.

RULING: YES, agreements stipulatingLina

longer
periodsterminated
may constitute
lawful
exceptions
to the
was probationary
unjustly and unlawfully
even after
she had
already completed
statutory prescription limiting such periods to six months.

successive three six-month probationary periods of employment which should have

converted her status to that of a regular employee. Her termination, therefore, violated her
The SC in its decision in Buiser vs. Leogardo, Jr. (1984) said that Generally, the probationary period of
right to The
security
of tenuretoin this
her employment.
But iseven
probationary
employees
employment is limited to six (6) months.
exception
general rule
when
the parties
to anare
protected
by
law.
For
one,
probationary
employment
should
not
exceed
six
(6)
employment contract may agree otherwise, such as when the same is established by company policymonths
or
from the
date the
started working,
it is covered
by latter
an apprenticeship
when the same is required by the nature
of work
toemployee
be performed
by the unless
employee.
In the
case,
there is recognition of the exercise
of managerial
prerogatives
inthe
requiring
agreement
stipulating a longer
period. True,
services of a
anlonger
employeeperiod
who has of
been
probationary employment, such as
in the
case
where
the
probationary
for to
engaged
on apresent
probationary
basis
may be
terminated
for a justperiod
cause orwas
whenset
he fails
eighteen (18) months, i.e. from May, 1980 to October, 1981 inclusive, especially where the employee must
qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards made known
learn a particular kind of work such as selling, or when the job requires certain qualifications, skills
by the employer to the employee at the time of his employment. but the law is explicit that
experience or training.
an employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a
regular
employee
.
In this case, the extension given to
Dequila
could
not have been pre-arranged to avoid the legal
consequences of a probationary period satisfactorily completed. In fact, it was ex gratia, an act of liberality
Prime
Securitychance
Services,
v. NLRC
(GR No.
107320).
Thefailed
complaint
on the part of his employer affordingAhim
a second
to Inc.
make
good after
having
initially
to
alleged,
among
others,now
that unjustly
complainant
respondent
herein)
had been
prove his worth as an employee. Such
an act
cannot
be (private
turned against
said
employers
working
a security
guard
for a according
year with the
Sugarland
Security Services,
account to compel it to keep on its payroll
one as
who
could not
perform
to its
work standards.

Inc., a sister company of petitioner; that he was rehired as a security guard on

January 30,
1988 by the petitioner
to the(G.R.
same No
post 74246)
at the U.S.
Mariwasa
Manufacturing,
Inc. and
vs. assigned
Leogardo
Embassy
Roxas Boulevard,
that he was
among those
Joaquin
A. Building
Dequila along
(or Dequilla)
was hiredManila;
on probation
by Mariwasa
Manufacturing,
as a general
worker
on January
10,of1979.
absorbed by theInc.
petitioner
when it utility
took over
the security
contracts
its sister
After
6 months,
he was
informed
thatInc.,
his with
workthe
was
company,
Sugarland
Security
Services,
U.S.unsatisfactory
Embassy; that and
he was
had
failed
to
meet
the
required
standards.
To
give
him
another
chance,
forced by petitioner to sign new probationary contracts of employment for
and
Dequilas
Dequilas
six with
(6) months;
that onwritten
August 1,consent,
1988, his Mariwasa
employmentextended
was terminated;

probationary period for another three months: from July 10 to

Buiser, 9,
et al
vs. Hon.
Leogardo,
Jr, GR No.
L-63316did
xxxnot
Generally,
October
1979.
Dequilas
performance,
however,
improvethe
probationary period of employment is limited to six (6) months. The exception to
this general rule is when the parties to an employment contract may agree
otherwise, such as when the same is established by company policy or when the
same is required by the nature of work to be performed by the employee. In the
latter case, there is recognition of the exercise of managerial prerogatives in
requiring a longer period of probationary employment, such as in the present
case where the probationary period was set 1 for eighteen (18) months, i.e. from
May, 1980 to October, 1981 inclusive, especially where the employee must learn
a particular kind of work such as selling, or when the job requires certain
qualifications, skills, experience or training
xxx We, therefore, hold and rule that the probationary employment of petitioners
set to eighteen (18) months is legal and valid and that the Regional Director and
the Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment committed no abuse of discretion
in ruling accordingly. xxx