Canadian Opportunities v.

Dalangin
G.R. 172223 – 6 Feb 2012
J. Brion

Topic: Probationary – Duration/Exception

Petitioners: Canadian Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. (Canadian)

Respondents: Bart Q. Dalangin, Jr.

Case Summary:
Dalangin was a probationary employee of petitioner. One month into his employment, he was
dismissed after he refused to attend a seminar, on top of other violations and negative attitude he
showed, as reported by his immediate supervisor.

LA said he was illegally dismissed. NLRC reversed this, but the CA agreed with the LA, adding that
one month is not enough for Canadian to assess Dalangin’s performance. The Supreme Court agreed
with the NLRC and held Dalangin was validly dismissed.

Facts:
 20 Nov 2001: Dalangin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and
backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees against Canadian
 Canadian is based in Pasong Tamo, Makati and provides assistance and related services to
applicants for permanent residence in Canada
 Dalangin was hired by Canadian in Oct 2001 as Immigration and Legal Manager
o Monthly salary of P15,000
o On probation for 6 months
o To report directly to Chief Operations Officer Annie Llamanzares Abad
o Tasks: Review clients’ applications for immigration to ensure they are in accordance with
Canadian and Philippine laws
 A memo dated 27 Oct 2001 signed by Abad terminated Dalangin’s employment, declaring him
“unfit” and “unqualified” for the ff reasons:
a) Obstinacy and utter disregard of company policies. Propensity to take prolonged and extended
lunch breaks, shows no interest in familiarizing oneself with the policies and objectives.
b) Lack of concern for the company’s interest despite having just been employed in the company.
(Declined to attend company sponsored activities, seminars intended to familiarize company
employees with Management objectives and enhancement of company interest and objectives.)
c) Lack of enthusiasm toward work
d) Lack of interest in fostering relationship with his co-employees

Compulsory Arbitration Proceedings

Dalangin’s arguments
 He said he inquired from Abad about the subject and purpose of the Oct 27 (Saturday, 2pm
onwards) “Values Formation Seminar” and when he learned it does not relate to his duties, he told
Abad he would not attend as he would go to his family in the province
 Abad insisted that he attend so others would attend. Dalangin said he should not be treated similarly
with other employees as there are differences between their positions and duties, but he signified
his willingness to attend the seminar. He requested Abad to have it conducted within office hours
so everybody can attend
 Abad refused and said all employees may be required to stay beyond 2pm on Saturdays which is
still considered part of office hours
  Under his employment contract, his work schedule is Mon to Fri 9 – 6pm and 9 – 2pm Saturday
 Dalangin argued it was established company practice that work hours end at 2pm on Saturdays and
employee cannot be made to stay beyond that except under circumstances in Art 89 of the Labor
Code
 26 Oct 2001: Abad issued a memo requiring him to explain why he couldn’t attend the seminar and
other forthcoming seminars
 The next day, Abad told him that Mr. Yadi N. Sichani (Managing Director), wanted to meet with
him regarding the matter. At the meeting, Sichani said his services were being terminated because
Sichani could not keep in his company “people who are hard-headed and who refuse to follow
orders from management.”
o He was also told that since he was probationary employee, he could be terminated at any
time and at will
o Sichani refused to accept his letter-reply to the company memorandum dated October 26,
2001 and instead told him to just hand it over to Abad
Canadian’s side
 Dalangin, being under probation, could be terminated should he fail to meet the standards to qualify
as a regular employee
 He was informed he would be evaluated on the basis of the results of his work, attitude towards the
company, his work and his co-employees, as spelled out in his job description;11 and on the basis
of Abad’s affidavit
 During his brief stint in the company, Dalangin showed lack of enthusiasm towards his work and
was indifferent towards his co-employees and the company clients
 Refused to comply with policies and procedures (taking long lunch breaks [more than 1 hr], leaving
company premises without informing immediate superior only to call the office later and say he
would be unable to return because of personal matters)
 Showed lack of interpersonal skills and initiative, e.g. when the immigration application of a client,
Mrs. Jennifer Tecson, was denied by the Canadian Embassy
o He did not provide counsel to Tecson, and he should have appealed her denied application,
but he did not
 Refused to attend company-sponsored seminars designed to acquaint or update the employees with
the company’s policies and objectives
 Since Dalangin failed to qualify for the position of Immigration and Legal Manager, the company
decided to terminate his services after due notice of the decision and reasons for his separation

Compulsory Arbitration Rulings

 33 Apr 2003: LA declared Dalangin’s dismissal illegal and awarded him backwages, moral and
exemplary damages, atty’s fees
 Charges against Dalangin were not established by clear and substantial proof

NLRC
 Reversed the decision: Dalangin’s dismissal is a valid exercise of the company’s management
prerogative since he failed to meet the standards for regular employment
 Denied Dalangin’s MR  went to CA under Rule 65

Court of Appeals
 Agreed with LA: Company failed to support, with substantial evidence, its claim that Dalangin
failed to meet the standards to qualify as a regular employee
 Company did not allow Dalangin to prove he possessed the qualifications to meet the reasonable
standards for his regular employment; instead, it dismissed Dalangin peremptorily from the service
 Impossible for Canadian to determine his performance barely one month into employment
  Denied Canadian’s MR

Issues + Held:
1. W/N Dalangin, a probationary employee, was validly dismissed – YES
o International Catholic Migration Commission v. NLRC: A probationary employee, as per
Art. 281 of the LC, 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
o The essence of a probationary period of employment fundamentally lies in the
purpose or objective of both the employer and the employee during the period.
While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a probationer to
ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment, the latter seeks to
prove to the former that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards
for permanent employment
o The “trial period” or the length of time the probationary employee remains on
probation depends on the parties’ agreement, but it shall not exceed six months
under Art. 2811, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a
longer period
o The word “probationary” implies the purpose of the term or period, but not its
length
o The fact that Dalangin was separated from the service after only about four weeks does
not necessarily mean that his separation from the service is without basis
o There is substantial evidence indicating the company was justified in terminating
Dalangin’s employment, however brief it had been
 Substantial evidence – Relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion
o Dalangin offered glimpses of his own behavior and actuations during his one month stay
with the company (negative attitude towards the company, co-employees, and work)
o He admitted in the compulsory arbitration that the proximate cause of his dismissal was
his refusal to attend the Values Formation seminar
 The seminar showed what kind of person and employee Dalangin was
 Highlighted his lack of interest in familiarizing himself with the company’s
objectives and policies
 Had he attended the seminar, he could have broadened his awareness of the
company’s policies, in addition to Abad’s briefing him about the company’s
policies on punctuality and attendance, and the procedures to be followed in
handling the clients’ applications
 Showed lack of interest in establishing good working relationship with his co-
employees; was arrogant and condescending
o Regarding the long lunch breaks and the Tecson case, he did not counter or explain
Abad’s accusations
o Disagree with the CA that the company could not have fully determined Dalangin’s
performance barely one month into his employment; Four weeks was enough for the

1
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
 company to assess Dalangin’s fitness for the job and he was found wanting. In
separating Dalangin from the service before the situation got worse, we find the
company not liable for illegal dismissal

2. W/N Dalangin was afforded procedural due process – NO

o Section 2, Rule I, Book VI of the Labor Code’s IRR: “If the termination is brought about
by the completion of a contract or phase thereof, or by failure of an employee to meet the
standards of the employer in the case of probationary employment, it shall be sufficient
that a written notice is served the employee within a reasonable time from the effective
date of termination.”
o Records support Dalangin’s contention that the notice served on him did not give him a
reasonable time from the effective date of his separation, as required by the rules
o He was dismissed on the very day the notice was given to him (October 27, 2001)
o Although the court cannot invalidate his dismissal in light of the valid cause for his
separation, the company’s non-compliance with the notice requirement entitles Dalangin
to indemnity (nominal damages of P10,000.00 awarded)
o Claim for moral and exemplary damages must fail given there was valid reason for his
dismissal

Ruling:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby SET ASIDE. The complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Petitioner Canadian Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. is DIRECTED to pay respondent Bart Q. Dalangin, Jr.
nominal damages in the amount of P10,000.00.
Costs against the respondent.

Dissent – (J. xxx): None