DISMISSA;

In sum, petitioner was validly dismissed from probationary employment before the
expiration of his 12-month probationary employment contract. As held in the case of Carvajal v.
Luzon Development Bank (G.R. No. 186169, August 1, 2012), termination may be done anytime
during the probation if it is for a valid cause. To reiterate, the employer does not have to wait until
the probation period is over before it can validly terminate an employee.

Moreover, in the Probationary Employment Contract (Annex ____) , respondents reserved

the right to immediately terminate the contract in the event of a below satisfactory performance,
serious disregard of company rules and policies and other reasons critical to its interests. (Carvajal v.
Luzon Development Bank, G.R. No. 186169, [August 1, 2012], 692 PHIL 273-288)

With a valid reason for petitioner's dismissal coupled with the proper observance of due
process, the claim for backwages must necessarily fail.
||| (Carvajal v. Luzon Development Bank, G.R. No. 186169, [August 1, 2012], 692 PHIL 273-
288)

DUE PROCESS REQ

In International Catholic Migration Commission v. NLRC, the Court explained that a

probationary employee, as understood under Article 281 of the Labor Code, is one who is on trial by
an employer, during which, the latter determines whether or not he is qualified for permanent
employment. A probationary appointment gives the employer an opportunity to observe the fitness
of a probationer while at work, and to ascertain whether he would be a proper and efficient
employee.

Complainant was barely three months on the job when respondent terminated his
employment. He was found wanting in qualities that would make him a "proper and efficient"
employee or, as the company put it, he was unfit and unqualified to continue as a Technician.
||| (Canadian Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. v. Dalangin, Jr., G.R. No. 172223, [February 6,
2012], 681 PHIL 21-39)

There is substantial evidence indicating that the company was justified in terminating
complainant’s employment, however brief it had been.

Complainant overlooks the fact, wittingly or unwittingly, that he offered glimpses of his own
behavior and actuations during his three month stay with the company; he betrayed his negative
attitude and regard for the company, his co-employees and his work.
||| (Canadian Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. v. Dalangin, Jr., G.R. No. 172223, [February 6,
2012], 681 PHIL 21-39)

There was no showing, as borne out by the records, that there was circumvention of the
rights of private respondent when he was informed of his termination. His dismissal is not arbitrary,
fanciful or whimsical. Complainant was duly notified, orally and in writing,that his services as
Technician is terminated for failure to meet the prescribed standards of respondent as reflected in
the performance evaluation conducted by his supervisors during the duration of his probationary
employment.

The dissatisfaction of respondent over the performance of the complainant in this regard is a
legitimate exercise of its prerogative to select whom to hire or refuse employment for the success of
its program or undertaking. More importantly, complainant failed to show that there was unlawful
discrimination in the dismissal. (International Catholic Migration Commission v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 72222, January 30, 1989)

UNEXPIRED PORTION OF CONTRACT

No less than the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no basis for complainant to claim his
salary for the unexpired portion of his twelve-month probationary employment when he was validly
terminated prior to lapse of probationary period. (International Catholic Migration Commission v.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 72222, January 30, 1989) To sanction such would
not only be unjust, but oppressive on the part of the employer as emphasized in Pampanga Bus Co.,
Inc., v. Pambusco Employer Union, Inc. (76 SCRA 250)

. x x x.

Within the limited legal six-month probationary period, probationary employees are still
entitled to security of tenure. It is expressly provided in the afore-quoted Article 281 that a
probationary employee may be terminated only on two grounds: (a) for just cause, or (b) 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.[4