Enchanted Kingdom, Inc. vs.

Miguel Verzo
G.R. no. 209559
Mendoza, J.

Dec. 9, 2015

Facts:
-

August 19, 2009: Respondent Verzo, a licensed engineer, was hired by EK to work as
Section headMechanical and Instrumentation Maintenance (SH-MIM) for a period of 6
months on probationary status.
o Task: to conduct mechanical and structural system assessments as well as to
inspect and evaluate the conditions, operations and maintenance requirements of
rides, facilities and buildings to ensure compliance with applicable codes,
regulations and standards. It was noted that he was also provided a detailed list
of responsibilities he should fulfill.
EK management, however, found his performance lacking as revealed by the complaints
stacked against him by his immediate supervisor (Velesrubio), and fellow section heads
(Schoefield and Montemayor):
Verzo failed to take action in replacing the faucets in the lavatories of the park;
Failed to ensure the proximity brackets of one of the rides were properly installed;
Mishandled the operation of the parks submersible pump, which resulted in the overflow of
sludge from the parks sewage treatment plant;
o He reported that one of the rides had sufficient water for its operation, but the following day,
one of EKs patrons got injured due to the ponds low water level;
o Often used company time to browse the internet;
o Even when there is urgent work, he would still go home or take his lunchtime;
o Had no initiative whatsoever, and would disappear when certain activities called for people;
o Very slow in making decisions and in acting which resulted to delays or to no results at all;
o Often times, he would report at 9:00 in the morning, affecting productivity;
o Was afraid of giving orders to his subordinates;
o Was very lax in his work and did not immediately comply with orders;
o Lacked the pertinent technical knowledge needed for the position.
February 3, 2010: EK furnished Verzo a copy of the Cast Member Performance Appraisal for
regularization which he scored only 70 out of 100, with comments that he was lacking in
supervisory skill; incompetent technically; and lacking in initiative/sense of responsibility.
February 15, 2010: EK formally informed Verzo that he failed to qualify as a regular employee as
he did not meet the requirements for the position.
Verzo consequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal:
o Claimed that he was only appraised of his probationary status after he was hired, and that
he was not advised as to the standards required for his regularization.
o He contended that he did his job well;
o When he asked his immediate supervisor about his not being regularized, Verso said that
Velesrubio refused to provide any explanation;
o He was later advised to just resign in exchange for a certificate of employment.
o He was then shown a copy of his performance appraisal and the memoranda submitted by
Schoefield, Montemayor and Velesrubio detailing his shortcomings. Before he could
reply, however, he was terminated from work.
o
o
o

LA: dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

NLRC: Affirmed the decision of the LA.
CA: reversed
o EK failed to set the standards that would gauge Verzos performance, and that the latters
termination was in bad faith.

Issues/held:
-

Probationary employee: one who, for a given period of time, is being observed and evaluated to
determine whether or not he or she is qualified for permanent employment. A probationary
appointment affords the employer an opportunity to observe the skill, competence and attitude of
a probationer.
o While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a probationer, to
ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment, the probationer, at the same
time, seeks to prove to the employer that he has qualifications to meet the reasonable
standards for permanent employment.
o Probationary employment was, thus, introduced for the benefit of the employer to provide
him with ample time to determine the competence, ability, and values of the probationer.
o Maybe terminated only under the following reasons: (a) a just; or (b) an authorized cause;
and (c) when he or she fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the
reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.
Section 6(d), Rule I, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the LC: if the employer fails to
inform the probationer of the reasonable standards on which his regularization would be based at
the time of the engagement, then the said employee shall be deemed a regular employee.
o Two requirements can be gleaned here: (1) employer must communicate the
regularization standards to employee; (2) employer must make such communication at
the time of the employees probationary engagement.
o EXC: when the job is self-descriptive (cooks, maids, drivers, etc.)
At the case at hand, the letter Verzo received at the start of his employment (letter dated August
26, 2009) clearly dictated to him both of his probationary status and the standards for his
regularization.
o Letter specifically detailed that his probationary period ran from August 19, 2009 to
February 18, 2010. The standard, on the other hand, was inscribed in the job description
stated above.
o It doesnt matter that the letter was given days after the start of his actual work. There is
substantial compliance on the part of EK as the true test for compliance with the
requirements of the law is one of reasonableness. As long as the probationer is given a
reasonable time and opportunity to be made fully aware of what is expected of him
during the early phases of the probationary period, then the requirement has been
satisfied. Plus the delay was only for 14 days!
SC finds that EK had basis in discontinuing the services of Verzo:
o Verzo was appraised of the shortcomings of his work via the evaluation performance
given by Schoefield, Montemayor and Velesrubio.
o Granting that Verzo was not informed of his specific duties and responsibilities,
nonetheless, his dismissal was valid because he failed to adhere to the dictates of
common sense required in his work and by his profession as a licensed engineer.

o
o
o

Management telling Verzo to resign instead should not be taken as bad faith on their part.
Punctuality reasonable standard; in fact, habitual tardiness can constitute gross or
habitual neglect of duty.
Notice and hearing are not required in case of probationary employees not reaching the
standards set by the employer; it is in apprising him of the standards against which his
performance shall be continuously assessed where due process under this ground of
dismissal lies.