Euro-Linea Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission

No. L-75782. December 1, 1987

P- Euro-Linea Phils., Inc.

R- NLRC/ Jimmy Pastoral.

Labor Code, Article 4 – Construction in favor of Labor

Facts:

·                   Pastoral had been employed by FMC as shipping expediter for 1 year & 5 mos.
·         Then, Euro-Linea absorbed Pastoral as shipping expediter on a probationary basis for a period of six months.
·         But before his probationary period ended, his employment was terminated for failure "to meet the performance standards set by the company."
·         Pastoral filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner.
·         The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Pastoral, ordering the reinstatement of complainant with six months backwages, which was affirmed by the NLRC.
·         The petitioner argued that the dismissal is with cause, since respondent during his period of employment failed to meet the performance standards set by the company; that employers should be given leeway in the application of his right to choose efficient workers; and that the determination of compliance with the standards is the prerogative of the employer as long as it is not whimsical; that it had terminated for cause the respondent before the expiration of the probationary employment

Issue:

            WoN the dismissal of Pastoral was justifiable.

Ruling:

            No, because the petitioner not only failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate the cause of private respondent's dismissal, but likewise failed to cite particular acts or instances to show the latter's poor performance.

Furthermore, what makes the dismissal highly suspicious is the fact that while petitioner claims that respondent was inefficient, it retained his services until the last remaining two weeks of the six months probationary employment.

The prerogative of management to dismiss or lay-off an employee must be done without abuse of discretion, for what is at stake is not only petitioner's position but also his means of livelihood. The right of an employer to freely select or discharge his employees is subject to regulation by the State, basically in the exercise of its paramount police power because the preservation of the lives of the citizens is a basic duty of the State, more vital than the preservation of corporate profits.

Finally, in the interpretation of the protection to labor and social justice provisions of the constitution and the labor laws and rules and regulations implementing the constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court has always adopted the liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights (Article 4 of the New Labor Code).

            Thus, the petition is DISMISSED.