G.R. No. 186169 - MYLENE CARVAJAL, VS. LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK AND/OR OSCAR Z. RAMIREZ. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered declaring that complainant as probationary employee was illegally dismissed. Respondents are ordered to immediately reinstate complainant to her former position, without loss of any seniority rights and other monetary benefits. However, if reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained relationship between the parties, respondents are further ordered to pay complainant, jointly and severally the amount of P20,070.38, representing full backwages of complainant from the time of her illegal dismissal up to the end of her probationary contract of employment with respondent bank. Plus, 10% of the monetary award as attorneys fee. [11] The Labor Arbiter found that petitioner was dismissed without due process because she was not afforded the notice in writing informing her of what respondent (the Bank) would like to bring out to her for the latter to answer in writing. The Labor Arbiter also did not consider unsatisfactory performance as a valid ground to shorten the six-month contract of petitioner with the Bank. [12] The decision of the Labor Arbiter was partially appealed to the NLRC by petitioner. Petitioner contended that she should be considered a regular employee and that the computation by the Labor Arbiter of backwages up to the end of her probationary contract is without basis. In its Comment, respondent argued against the illegality of petitioners dismissal and their joint and solidary liability to pay complainants monetary claims. On 31 May 2006, the NLRC affirmed with modification the Labor Arbiters Decision and ordered for petitioners reinstatement, to wit: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision is hereby affirmed with MODIFICATION ordering the respondents to reinstate the complainant to her former position, without loss of any seniority rights and other monetary benefits and to pay her full backwages from the date of her dismissal to the date of her reinstatement, actual or in payroll. All other aspect[s] of the assailed decision stands. [13] Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration but the NLRC denied the same in a Resolution [14] dated 20 July 2006. In a petition for certiorar i filed by respondents, the Court of Appeals rendered the 20 August 2008 Decision reversing the NLRC ruling, thus: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed NLRC Resolution in NLRC CA No. 046866-05 dated May 31, 2006 which affirmed with modification the Decision of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC Case No. RAB IV-2-18910-04-L dated June 9, 2005 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. All monetary liabilities decreed in the Labor Arbiters Decision against petitioners are hereby SET ASIDE. The Complaint for illegal dismissal, money claims and damages is ORDERED DISMISSED. [15] The Court of Appeals found that petitioner is not entitled to backwages because she was rightfully dismissed for failure to meet the employment standards. The motion for reconsideration