This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-02-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Citing a ruling of the Court in an earlier case,[16] the CA pointed out that the company did not allow Dalangin to prove that he possessed the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for his regular employment; instead, it dismissed Dalangin peremptorily from the service. It opined that it was quite improbable that the company could fully determine Dalangin's performance barely one month into his employment.[17] | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| While petitioners were only probationary employees who do not enjoy permanent status, nonetheless, they were still entitled to the constitutional protection of security of tenure. As may be gleaned in the abovequoted provision, their employment may only be terminated for a valid and just cause or for failing to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards made known to him by the employer at the time of engagement and after being accorded due process.[37] | |||||
|
2005-04-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| While the respondent is only a probationary employee and does not enjoy permanent status, nonetheless, he is entitled to constitutional protection of security of tenure.[13] His employment may only be terminated for a valid and just cause or if he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards made known to him by the employer at the time of engagement and after due process.[14] Since neither circumstance attended the petitioner's termination of the respondent's employment, the appellate court correctly affirmed the decision of the NLRC finding the petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal. | |||||