Pfcci V NLRC

G.R. No. 121071.
December 11, 1998
PHIL. FEDERATION OF CREDIT COOPERATIVES, INC. (PECCI) and FR.

BENEDICTO JAYOMA, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (First Division) and VICTORIA ABRIL, Respondents.
FACTS:
Sometime in September 1982, private respondent Victoria Abril was employed by

petitioner Philippine Federation of Credit Cooperatives, Inc. (PFCCI), a corporation
engaged in organizing services to credit and cooperative entities, as Junior Auditor/Field
Examiner and thereafter held positions in different capacities, to wit: as office secretary
in 1985 and as cashier-designate for four (4) months ending in April 1988.
Respondent, shortly after resuming her position as office secretary, subsequently went
on leave until she gave birth to a baby girl. Upon her return from leave, sometime in
November 1989, however, she discovered that a certain Vangie Santos had been
permanently appointed to her former position. But she, nevertheless, accepted the
position of Regional Field Officer as evidenced by a contract which stipulated, among
other things, that respondent’s employment status shall be probationary for a period of
six (6) months.
Said period having elapsed, respondent was allowed to work until PFCCI presented to
her another employment contract for a period of one year commencing on January 2,
1991 until December 31, 1991, after which period, her employment was terminated.
She, then, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision
dismissing the same for lack of merit but ordered PFCCI to reimburse her the amount of
P2,500.00 which had been deducted from her salary. On appeal, however, the said
decision was reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
ISSUE:
W/N Victoria Abril should be considered a regular employee which would entitle her to
security of tenure. -YES.
HELD:
Probationary employees, notwithstanding their limited tenure, are also entitled to

security of tenure. Thus, except for just cause as provided by law,2 or under the
employment contract, a probationary employee cannot be terminated.
In the instant case, petitioner refutes the findings of the NLRC arguing that, after
respondent had allegedly abandoned her secretarial position for eight (8) months, she
applied for the position of Regional Field Officer for Region IV, which appointment, as
petitioner would aptly put it, had been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the
completion or termination of which had been determined at the time of the
engagement of said private respondent and therefore considered as a casual or
contractual employment under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
The Court is constrained to review the contract of employment entered into between
the party-litigants. The said contract reads:
That the employer hires the employee on contractual basis to the position of Regional
Field Officer of Region 4 under PFCCI/WOCCU/Aid Project No. 8175 and to do the
function as stipulated in the job description assigned to him (her): on probationary
status effective February 17/90 for a period not to exceed six (6) months from said
effectivity, subject to renewal of this contract should the employees performance be
satisfactory.
While the initial statements of the contract show that respondents employment was for
a fixed period, the succeeding provisions thereof contradicted the same when it
provided that respondent shall be under probationary status commencing on February
17, 1990 and ending six (6) months thereafter. Petitioner manifested that respondents
employment for a period of one year, from January until December 1991, having been
fixed for a specified period, could not have converted her employment status to one of
regular employment. Conversely, it likewise insisted that respondent was employed to
perform work related to a project funded by the World Council of Credit Unions
(WOCCU) and hence, her status is that of a project employee. The Court is, thus,
confronted with a situation under which the terms of the contract are so ambiguous as
to preclude a precise application of the pertinent labor laws.
Regardless of the designation petitioner may have conferred upon respondents

employment status, it is, however, uncontroverted that the latter, having completed the
probationary period and allowed to work thereafter, became a regular employee who
may be dismissed only for just or authorized causes under Articles 282, 283 and 284 of
the Labor Code, as amended. Therefore, the dismissal, premised on the alleged
expiration of the contract, is illegal and entitles respondent to the reliefs prayed for.

Pfcci V NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pfcci V NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pfcci V NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 121071.

December 11, 1998

PHIL. FEDERATION OF CREDIT COOPERATIVES, INC. (PECCI) and FR.

Sometime in September 1982, private respondent Victoria Abril was employed by

Probationary employees, notwithstanding their limited tenure, are also entitled to

Regardless of the designation petitioner may have conferred upon respondents

You might also like