FIRST DIVISION
GALLARDO U.
LUCERO,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
152032
July 3, 2003 -versus-
HON. COURT OF
APPEALSAND
PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL
BANK,
Respondents.
D
E C
I S I O N
VITUG,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before
the Court is a Petition
for Review on
Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure,
assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59684,
entitled "Philippine National Bank vs. NLRC (Second Division) and
Gallardo
U. Lucero," which has reversed and set aside the decision of the
National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on a case involving a complaint for
illegal
dismissal.chanrobles virtual law library
On 18
January 1995,
petitioner Gallardo U. Lucero started working on a contractual basis
with
private respondent Philippine National Bank (PNB). He was hired
by
Excellent Manpower Services, a manning agency, which then supplied the
manpower requirements of the PNB. On 06 December 1995, the PNB
extended
Lucero an original and permanent appointment as Liaison Officer 1, with
Salary Grade II, at the bank’s cash division.cralaw:red
On 23 May
1996, Lourdes
V. Ledesma, Vice-President of the Human Resources Department (HRD) of
the
PNB, issued a memorandum to Linda U. Gaerlan, then Vice-President of
the
Cash Division, informing the latter that the management approved the
termination
of services of Lucero due to the "unsatisfactory" performance rating
obtained
by him during the probationary period of his employment. Acting
on
the memorandum, Gaerlan wrote to the HRD requesting that Lucero’s name
be dropped from the official roll of PNB employees effective at the
close
of business hours of 31 May 1996. Meanwhile, on 24 May 1996,
Lucero
was served his termination papers.chanrobles virtual law library
On 07 June
1996, Lucero
wrote to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) protesting his dismissal by
the PNB and asking for his reinstatement. The CSC referred
Lucero’s
letter to the PNB for comment and appropriate action. In
compliance
with the directive of the CSC, the PNB wrote to Lucero on 25 June
1996 and furnished him with copies of the evaluation reports of his
superiors
at the bank. The CSC acknowledged the response of the PNB to the
former’s letter regarding Lucero’s complaint and informed the PNB that
it considered the complaint "closed." When informed of the action
of the CSC, Lucero pressed for a clarification on what "closed"
meant.
The CSC explained that, at the time he filed his complaint on 07 June
1996,
the PNB had already been privatized and that it was no longer covered
by
the CSC rules.cralaw:red
On 04
September 1996,
Lucero filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the PNB before
the
Labor Arbiter. On 28 September 1998, the Labor Arbiter dismissed
the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Labor Arbiter
declared
that Lucero was still a government employee when he was dismissed on 24
May 1996, the PNB having been privatized only on 27 May 1996.chanrobles virtual law library
On 17
December 1998,
Lucero went on appeal to the NLRC. The NLRC issued its judgment,
dated 14 March 2000, which reversed the assailed decision of the Labor
Arbiter and held that Lucero had been illegally dismissed by the
PNB.
The NLRC concluded:
"WHEREFORE,
the foregoing premises considered, the respondent bank is hereby
declared
guilty of having illegally dismissed the complainant; and it is hereby
ordered:
"1)
to immediately reinstate complainant without loss of seniority rights
and
privileges;
"2)
to pay his backwages inclusive of his allowances, other benefits or
their
monetary equivalent, based on his last gross salary rate of P8,009.00
and
computed from the time his compensation was withheld up to the time of
his reinstatement, whether actual or in the payroll; andchanrobles virtual law library
"3)
attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the above awards.chanrobles virtual law library
"All other claims
are
dismissed for lack of factual basis to award the same."[1]
The PNB filed in due
time
a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC in its
resolution
of 28 April 2000. Consistently with the decision of the NLRC,
Lucero
was meanwhile reinstated to his former position by the PNB, and he
resumed
his functions in the bank. The PNB, nevertheless, filed with the
Court of Appeals on 07 July 2000 a petition for certiorari under Rule
65
of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, contending that the NLRC committed
grave
abuse of discretion in assuming jurisdiction over the case and in
ruling
that Lucero’s dismissal was illegal. The PNB argued that since
Lucero
was dismissed on 24 May 1996, or prior to its privatization (on 27 May
1996), the case should have been decided on the basis of the Civil
Service
Law and not the Labor Code; that the NLRC erred in finding, even
assuming
that the NLRC had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case, that
Lucero
was illegally dismissed; and that the probationary employment was
validly
terminated because of his "unsatisfactory" performance.
On 31 July
2001, the
Court of Appeals rendered a decision to the effect that the NLRC
properly
assumed jurisdiction over the case; nevertheless, it found Lucero not
to
have been illegally dismissed. The appellate court held:
"WHEREFORE,
the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the National
Labor
Relations Commission is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, with the result that
the
complaint of Gallardo U. Lucero for illegal dismissal against the
Philippine
National Bank is DISMISSED."[2]chanrobles virtual law library
Lucero filed a motion
for
reconsideration; the Court of Appeals denied, in its resolution of 24
January
2002, the motion.
In the
instant petition,
petitioner Lucero focused his argument on the following asseverations;
thus:
"The Court
of Appeals committed a serious legal error in failing to hold that
petitioner
was already a regular employee at the time of his dismissal and hence,
could not be dismissed without just or authorized cause.
"The Court of
Appeals
legally erred in not holding that petitioner’s subsequently high
performance
rating should have been taken in his favor."[3]
The petition lacks
merit.
It would
appear that
on 18 January 1996, petitioner was hired by Excellent Manpower
Services,
a manning agency, which used to supply the manpower requirements of the
PNB, to work as an administrative assistant at the bank’s cash
division.
On 06 December 1995, petitioner was given by the PNB an original
appointment
as Liaison Officer I, with a permanent status, thereby foregoing his
previous
relationship with the bank, as aforesaid, and accepting thereby the
terms
appurtenant to his new appointment. At the time of the
appointment,
PNB was still a government agency subject to civil service rules and
regulations
that, among other things, subjected appointments "into the career
service
under a permanent status" to a probationary period.cralaw:red
Section 2,
Rule VII,
of the Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law reads:
"Section
2.
Original appointment refers to initial entry into the career service
under
a permanent status of a person who meets all the requirements of the
position
including the civil service eligibility.
"(a)
All such persons must serve a probationary period of six (6) months
following
their original appointment and shall undergo a thorough character
investigation.
A probationer may be dropped from the service for unsatisfactory
conduct
or want of capacity anytime before the expiration of the probationary
period:
Provided, that such action is appealable to the Commission."chanrobles virtual law library
The Court of Appeals,
reiterating
the findings of the NLRC, held that at the time of the services of
petitioner
were dispensed with on 31 May 1996, his employment with the PNB was
still
under probationary status, i.e., that he was still on trial during
which
time his qualification for his career employment would be determined.[4]
The performance by Gallardo was found inadequate by the PNB that
entitled
it to drop him from the service. Whether, indeed, that
performance
was satisfactory or unsatisfactory, was a factual question best
addressed
for final determination by the Court of Appeals, the findings on which,
when supported by substantial evidence, would be binding on this Court.[5]
The appellate court said:
"Applying
the foregoing
standards, we hold that PNB validly exercised its prerogative to
terminate
Lucero’s probationary employment for unsatisfactory performance.
Before expiration of his probationary employment, Lucero was informed
of
his termination. And it is noteworthy that his immediate
superiors
were one in saying that his attitude and work performance left much to
be desired.chanrobles virtual law library
"Thus, in
his memorandum
dated June 17, 1996 for Ms. Ledesma, Ubaldo L. Laranang, Suvpg., Money
Position Specialist, stated that Lucero ‘was oftenly given oral
reprimand
for his negative attitude and willful neglect of his duties;’ that
considering
the ‘negative feedbacks from other Units where he was previously
assigned,
he was sufficiently advised to reform and mend his ways in order to
give
a good account of himself;’ that ‘his irresponsible ways was already a
common knowledge in the entire Department;’ that ‘he never reformed;’
and
that ‘several Units heads are in unison in giving him unsatisfactory
rating.’
"On the
other hand,
Norma P. Perez, Dept. Manager III, in her memorandum for Ms. Ledesma
dated
June 17, 1996, declared that they ‘always reminded Mr. Lucero to
improve
his work attitude and performance while assigned in my division;’ that
‘he ignored all our reminders and oral reprimands as manifested in his
work output;’ and that she ‘observed no improvements on his work
attitude
and performance.’
"Finally,
Roger V. Estanislao,
Asst. Dept. Manager I, in his memorandum dated June 17, 1996 for Ms.
Ledesma,
stated that ‘for several times, Mr. Lucero was called upon at the
Office
of the Vice President to explain his poor performance and misconduct
reported
by his assigned supervisors;’ that Lucero ‘was absorbed by the Bank
after
he promised to the Vice-President that he will do good and improve his
performance;’ that Lucero ‘ignored the counseling and oral reprimands
by
his supervisors;’ and that he ‘received a written complaint from a lady
employee of this department on Mr. Lucero’s untoward behaviour which
has
affected her work performance.’chanrobles virtual law library
"A
probationary appointment
is intended to afford the employer an opportunity to observe the skill,
competence and attitude of a probationer (Escorpizo vs. University of
Baguio,
306 SCRA 497). In the instant case, Lucero proved himself
unworthy
of permanent employment. Consequently, PNB cannot be faulted for
terminating his services."[6]
It would be
difficult
to sustain the stand taken by petitioner that the Court of Appeals
erred
in ignoring his subsequent high performance rating. The high
rating
of "very satisfactory" obtained by petitioner after his reinstatement,
in compliance with the order of the NLRC, was not controlling, the
point
in question being his performance during the probationary period of the
employment.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE,
the assailed
decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59687
are AFFIRMED. No costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman),
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 70.
[2]
Rollo, p. 38.
[3]
Rollo, p. 19.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Philippine Federation of Credit Cooperatives, Inc. vs. NLRC, 300 SCRA
72.
[5]
Mani vs. Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 475.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Rollo, pp. 36-37.chanrobles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library |