Alcaraz felt that she was unjustly terminated from her
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, PHILIPPINES, CECILLE
A. TERRIBLE, EDWIN D. FEIST, MARIA OLIVIA T.
YABUTMISA, TERESITA C. BERNARDO, AND
ALLAN G. ALMAZAR, v. PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ
G.R. No. 192571               July 23, 2013
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Facts:
Abbott Laboratories, Philippines (Abbott) a pharmaceutical
company in need of Medical and Regulatory Affairs Manager
(Regulatory Affairs Manager). It caused the publication in a
major broadsheet newspaper; it included the duties and
responsibilities.
PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ, respondent, applied and hired
thereafter under probationary contract for 6 months from
February 15, 2005 to August 14, 2005 with salary of
₱110,000.00/ month. Her responsibilities were discussed to
her during her pre-orientation, including the handling of some
staffs in the company and handling the evaluation of the
probationary staffs in coordination with the HR director. She
was also given copies of Abbott’s Code of Conduct and
Probationary Performance Standards and Evaluation (PPSE)
and Performance Excellence Orientation Modules
(Performance Modules) which she have to apply in her task of
evaluating the staffs.
Abbott’s PPSE procedure mandates that the job performance
of a probationary employee should be formally reviewed and
discussed with the employee at least twice: first on the third
month and second on the fifth month from the date of
employment.
The necessary Performance Improvement Plan should also be
made during the third-month review in case of a gap between
the employee’s performance and the standards set. These
performance standards should be discussed in detail with the
employee within the first two (2) weeks on the job. The signed
copy of the PPSE form shall serve as documentation of the
employee’s performance during his/her probationary period
for recommendation or termination in the employment.
She was accorded too strict by her immediate supervisor in
handling the behaviours of the staffs when reprimanding them
of their misbehaviours, dress code, moonlighting, and
disrespect of Abbott officers.
On May 15, She was informed that that she failed to meet the
regularization standards for the position of Regulatory Affairs
Manager. Next day she was told that Walsh and Terrible
already announced to the whole Hospira ALSU staff that
Alcaraz already resigned due to health reasons. A week later,
she was handed a letter stating that her services had been
terminated effective May 19, 2005. 
She was given the following reason through a letter:
(a)              did not manage her time effectively; (b) failed to
gain the trust of her staff and to build an effective rapport with
them; (c) failed to train her staff effectively; and (d) was not
able to obtain the knowledge and ability to make sound
judgments on case processing and article review which were
necessary for the proper performance of her duties.
Classified as Confidential. Please do not forward this to unintended users. Otherwise, request necessary permission.
employment and thus, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
and damages against Abbott and its officers.
Labor Arbiter Dismissed Alcaraz’s complaint for lack of
merit. She was informed of the reasonable standards to qualify
as a regular employee and she received the Abbott’s Code of
Conduct and Performance Modules.
NLRC reversed LA decision, Abbot have committed illegal
dismissal. Alcaraz’s receipt of her job description and
Abbott’s Code of Conduct and Performance Modules was not
equivalent to her being actually informed of the performance
standards upon which she should have been evaluated on.
CA: Affirmed the ruling of the NLRC
Issue:
1.      Whether or not Alcaraz was validly terminated from
her employment.
SC Ruling:
1.      Yes. Alcaraz was validly terminated.
A probationary employee, like a regular employee, enjoys
security of tenure. The services of an employee who has been
engaged on probationary basis may be terminated for any of
the following:
(a)              a just or (b) an authorized cause; and (c) when he
fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
reasonable standards prescribed by the employer. Article 295
of the Labor Code.
(b)              Provided that: the employer shall make known to
the employee the standards under which he will qualify as a
regular employee at the time of his engagement. Where no
standards are made known to the employee at that time, he
shall be deemed a regular employee. Section 6(d), Rule I,
Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code
Abbott indicated the job description in the newspaper were
they offered the job to interested applicants. Received
employment contract, underwent to pre-employment contract,
training, received code of conduct manual, Alcaraz had
previously worked for another pharmaceutical company and
had admitted to have an "extensive training and background"
to acquire the necessary skills for her job, thus the fact that she
was well-aware of her duties and responsibilities and that her
failure to adequately perform the same would lead to her non-
regularization and eventually, her termination.