G.R. No.

77205 May 27, 1991

VALENTINO TORILLO vs. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., in his official capacity as
Deputy Minister of Labor; the HONORABLE MINISTER OF LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT; and ABERDEEN COURT, INC.
FERNAN, C.J.:
Facts:
Petitioner was illegally dismissed by private respondent. The Ministry of Labor ordered
the private respondent to reinstate petitioner and pay backwages and holiday pay. But
because reinstatement was no longer possible the Ministry of Labor modified the order
and stated that petitioner shall instead be awarded separation pay. Petitioner argues
that he is entitled to separation pay and backwages.
Issue:
Whether or not the award of backwages in addition to an award of separation pay to an illegally
dismissed employee whose reinstatement is no longer feasible is proper.
Held:
The clarificatory order erroneous in so far as it declared that the affirmative relief of backwages
is available only where reinstatement is ordered.
An illegally dismissed employee is awarded both backwages and separation pay. Article 280
(now Article 279) of the Labor Code provides that "an employee who is unjustly dismissed from
work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to
his full backwages.
Backwages are granted on grounds of equity for earnings which a worker or employee
has lost due to his illegal dismissal. Reinstatement on the other hand means restoration
to a state of condition from which one had been removed or separated. Backwages and
reinstatement are two reliefs given to an illegally dismissed employee.
In the event that reinstatement is no longer possible, separation pay is awarded to the employee.
Thus, the award of separation pay is in lieu of reinstatement and not of backwages. In other
words, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to (1) either reinstatement, if viable, or
separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable and (2) backwages.
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The decision in Labor Case No. R-4-STF-7-4525-78 is
hereby modified. Private respondent Aberdeen Court, Inc. is hereby ordered to pay petitioner
Valentino Torillo, the amount of P146,255.37 representing his backwages, separation pay,
holiday pay and unpaid wages by reason of his illegal dismissal. This decision is immediately
executory. Costs against private respondent.

G.R. No. 95940. July 24, 1996]

PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION and URBANO SUIGA
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Facts:
Private respondent was hired by petitioner in 1964 as a bus conductor. He eventually joined the
Pantranco Employees Association-PTGWO. He continued in petitioner's employ until August 12,
1989, when he was retired at the age of fifty-two (52) after having rendered twenty five years'
service. The basis of his retirement was the compulsory retirement provision of the collective
bargaining agreement between the petitioner and the a forenamed union. Private respondent
received P49,300.00 as retirement pay.
On February 15, 1990, private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
petitioner with the Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch of the respondent Commission in Dagupan
City. The complaint was consolidated with two other cases of illegal dismissal having similar
facts and issues, filed by other employees, non-union members.
Petitioner appealed to public respondent, which issued the questioned Resolution affirming the
labor arbiter's decision in toto. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision allowing compulsory retirement
before age 60 after twenty-five years of service legal and enforceable.
Held:
Yes. The compulsory retirement of private respondent effected in accordance effected in
accordance with CBA is legal and binding. A CBA the agreement reached after negotiations
between employer and bargaining agent with respect to terms and conditions of employment. A
CBA is not an ordinary contract. Being a product of negotiation, the CBA between the petitioner
and the union intended the provision on compulsory retirement to be beneficial to the employees-

union members, including herin private respondent. When private respondent ratified the CBA
with the union, he not only agreed to the CBA but also agreed to conform to and abide by its
provisions. Thus, it cannot be said that he was illegally dismissed when the CBA provision on
compulsory retirement was applied to his case.
Providing in a CBA for compulsory retirement of employees after twenty-five (25) years of
service is legal and enforceable so long as the parties agree to be governed by such CBA. The
law presumes that employees know what they want and what is good for them absent any
showing that fraud or intimidation was employed to secure their consent thereto.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED and the questioned Resolution is
hereby set aside. No costs.

G.R. No. 72222 January 30, 1989

INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION vs NLRC and
BERNADETTE GALANG
FERNAN, C.J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner ICMC is a non-profit organization dedicated to refugee service at the Philippine
Refugee Processing Center in Morong, Bataan. It engaged the services of private respondent
Bernadette Galang on January 24, 1983 as a probationary cultural orientation teacher. After 3
months, she was informed orally and in writing that her services were being terminated because
she failed in the performance evaluation of her supervisors during the teacher evaluation
program.
On August 22, 1983, Galang filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and
unpaid wages against petitioner with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment,praying for
reinstatement with backwages, exemplary and moral damages.

On October 8,1983, Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal as well as the
complaint for moral and exemplary damages but ordering the ICMC to pay Galang the sum of
P6,000.00 as payment for the last 3 months of the agreed employment period pursuant to her
verbal contract of employment.
Both parties appealed the decision to the NLRC. On August 22, 1985, the NLRC, by a majority
vote of Commissioners Guillermo C. Medina and Gabriel M. Gatchalian, sustained the decision
of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed both appeals for lack of merit. Dissatisfied,petitioner filed the
instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an employee who was terminated during the probationary period of her
employment is entitled to her salary for the unexpired portion of her six-month probationary
employment
HELD:
NO. Galang was terminated during her probationary period of employment for failure to qualify
as a regular member of petitioners teaching staff in accordance with its reasonable standards.
Galang was found by petitioner to be deficient in classroom management, teacher-student
relationship and teaching techniques. Failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
the reasonable standards of the employer is a just cause for terminating a probationary employee
specifically recognized under Article 282 (now Article 281) of the Labor Code.
The labor arbiters decision is erroneous. The award of salary for the unexpired portion of the
probationary employment on the ground that a probationary employment for 6months is an
employment for a "definite period" which requires the employer to exhaust the entire
probationary period to give the employee the opportunity to meet the required standards.
A probationary employee is one who is on trial by an employer during which the
employer determines whether or not he is qualified for permanent employment. A
probationary appointment is made to afford the employer an opportunity to observe the
fitness of a probationer while at work, and to ascertain whether he will become a proper
and efficient employee. The word probationary,as used to describe the period of
employment, implies the purpose of the term or period, but not its length.
Being in the nature of a trial period the essence of a probationary period of
employment fundamentally lies in the purpose or objective sought to be attained by both
the employer and the employee during said period. The length of time is immaterial in
determining the correlative rights of both in dealing with each other during said period.
It is within the exercise of the right to select his employees that the employer may set or
fix a probationary period within which the latter may test and observe the conduct of the
former before hiring him permanently. As the law now stands, Article 281 of the Labor
Code gives ample authority to the employer to terminate a probationary employee 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. Nothing would preclude the employer from extending a regular or a
permanent appointment to an employee once the employer finds that the employee is
qualified for regular employment even before the expiration of the probationary period.
There was no showing, as borne out by the records, that there was circumvention of the
rights of Galang when she was informed of her termination. Her dismissal does not
appear to us as arbitrary, fanciful or whimsical. She was duly notified, orally and in
writing, that her services were terminated for failure to meet the prescribed standards of

petitioner as reflected in the performance evaluation conducted by her supervisors

during the teacher evaluating program. The dissatisfaction of petitioner over the
performance of private respondent in this regard is a legitimate exercise of its
prerogative to select whom to hire or refuse employment for the success of its program
or undertaking.
The lower court abused its discretion when it ordered ICMC to Galang her salary for the
unexpired three-month portion of her six-month probationary employment when she
was validly terminated during her probationary employment. To sanction such action
would not only be unjust, but oppressive on the part of the employer.
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the NLRC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE
insofar as it ordered petitioner to pay private respondent her P6,000.00salary for the
unexpired portion of her six-month probationary employment. No cost.
G.R. No. 85519 February 15, 1990
UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS, FR. MAXIMO MARINA O.P. AND GILBERTO L.
GAMEZ, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HONORABLE LABOR
ARBITER BIENVENIDO S. HERNANDEZ AND BASILIO E. BORJA
GANCAYCO, J.:
FACTS:
Private respondent Dr. Basilio E. Borja was first appointed as "affiliate faculty" in the Faculty of
Medicine and Surgery at the University of Sto. Tomas.
Dr. Borja was appointed instructor with a load of 12 hours a week. He was then
reappointed again as instructor with a load of 9) hours a week in the first semester and
2 hours a week in the second. And he was appointed as Instructor III with a load of
8hours a week, and for the second semester, 7 hours a week.
Dean Gilberto Gamez observed that Dr. Borja should not be reappointed based on the
evaluation sheet that shows his sub-standard and inefficient performance.
In view of the critical shortage of staff members in the Department of Neurology and
Psychiatry, Dr. Borja was reappointed and given a load of 6 hours a week after
informing him the negative feedbacks regarding his teaching and his promise to improve
his performance.
It appearing that Dr. Borja had not improved his performance in spite of his assurances
of improvement, his reappointment was not recommended. Borja filed a complaint in
the NLRC for illegal dismissal against the UST.
The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of Dr. Borja. NLRC affirmed the decision
of the labor arbiter stating that private respondent had earned to his credit 8 semesters
or 4 academic years of professional duties with the UST and that he has met the
requirements to become a regular employee under the 3 years requirement in the
Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.
Petitioner UST alleged that the NLRC erred in ruling that Dr. Borja acquired tenure and
constructively terminated.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Borja was illegally dismissed
RULING:
No. Dr. Borjas constructive termination is without lawful basis.

The fact that Dr. Borja was not a full- time teacher, he could not have and did not
become a permanent employee even after the completion of three (3) years of service.
Hence, it correspondingly follows that there was no duty on the part of petitioner UST to
reappoint private respondent as Instructor, the temporary appointment having lapsed.
Such appointment is a matter addressed to the discretion of UST.
The Manual of Regulations for Private Schools which determines the acquisition of
regular or permanent status of faculty members in an educational institution
contemplates that it is not only the completion of three (3) years of service that is required to
acquire such status. Paragraph 75 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools states that:
75. Full time teachers who have rendered three consecutive years of satisfactory service shall be
considered permanent."
1) the teacher is a full time teacher;
2) the teacher must have rendered three (3) consecutive years of service; and
3) such service must have been satisfactory.
The Manual of Regulations also states that "a full-time teacher" is "one whose total working day
is devoted to the school, has no other regular remunerative employment and is paid on a regular
monthly basis regardless of the number of teaching hours" (Par. 77); and that in college, "the
nominal teaching load of a full-time instructor shall be eighteen hours a week" (par. 78).
It follows that a part-time member of the faculty cannot acquire permanence in employment
under the Manual of Regulations in relation to the Labor Code.
It cannot be said that respondent's total working day was devoted to the school alone. It is clear
from the record that he was practicing his profession as a doctor and maintaining a clinic in the
hospital for this purpose during the time that he was given a teaching load. In other words, he
had another regular remunerative work aside from teaching.
Therefore, Dr. Borja had to have other sources of income and the compensation for teaching
shows that he was no paid on a regular monthly basis.
It would appear that teaching was only a secondary occupation or "sideline," his professional
practice as a psychiatrist being his main vocation.
The record also discloses that he never had a normal teaching load of eighteen (18) hours a week
during the time that he was connected with the university.
Dr. Borjas sworn declaration is to effect that as affiliate faculty member of the Department of
Neurology and Psychiatry, private respondent had no teaching functions: that in fact, as affiliate
faculty he was merely an observer acquainting himself with functions of an instructor while
awaiting issuance of a normal appointment as such.
The private respondent, therefore, could not be regarded as a full- time teacher in any aspect. He
could not be regarded as such because his total working day was not devoted to the school and he
had other regular remunerative employment. Moreover, his average teaching load was only 6.33
hours a week.

Petition is granted.