[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
117 views2 pages

Employment Probationary Period Ruling

Petitioners were employed as sales representatives by a telephone directory company under an 18-month probationary contract. Petitioners argued this exceeded the 6-month probationary limit under the Labor Code. The Court ruled the 18-month period was valid because the nature of selling required longer training and assessment to determine employees' skills and capabilities. Exceptions to the 6-month limit are permitted when required by the work or established company policy. The longer probationary period reflected the employer's valid managerial prerogative in this case.

Uploaded by

Johnde Martinez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
117 views2 pages

Employment Probationary Period Ruling

Petitioners were employed as sales representatives by a telephone directory company under an 18-month probationary contract. Petitioners argued this exceeded the 6-month probationary limit under the Labor Code. The Court ruled the 18-month period was valid because the nature of selling required longer training and assessment to determine employees' skills and capabilities. Exceptions to the 6-month limit are permitted when required by the work or established company policy. The longer probationary period reflected the employer's valid managerial prerogative in this case.

Uploaded by

Johnde Martinez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

BUISER vs. LEOGARDO, JR.

G.R. No. L-63316. July 31, 1984


GUERRERO, J.:

Digested by: Goling, Walbert M.

Facts

 Petitioners were employed by the private respondent GENERAL TELEPHONE


DIRECTORY COMPANY as sales representatives and charged with the duty of
soliciting advertisements for inclusion in a telephone directory.
 The records show that petitioners entered into an "Employment Contract (on
Probationary Status)" for a period of eighteen (18) months.
 It is petitioners’ submission that probationary employment cannot exceed six (6) months,
the only exception being apprenticeship and learnership agreements as provided in the
Labor Code; that this six-months prescription of the Labor Code was mandated to give
further efficacy to the constitutionally-guaranteed security of tenure of workers

Issue

 Whether or not probationary employment for eighteen (18) months instead of the
mandated six (6) months under the Labor Code is valid? – Yes.

Ruling

 Generally, the probationary period of employment is limited to six (6) months. The
exception to this general rule is when the parties to an employment contract may agree
otherwise, such as when the same is established by company policy or when the same is
required by the nature of work to be performed by the employee.

 In the latter case, there is recognition of the exercise of managerial prerogatives in


requiring a longer period of probationary employment, such as in the present case where
the probationary period was set for eighteen (18) months, especially where the employee
must learn a particular kind of work such as selling, or when the job requires certain
qualifications, skills, experience or training.

 In the case at bar, it is shown that private respondent Company needs at least eighteen
(18) months to determine the character and selling capabilities of the petitioners as sales
representatives.

 We, therefore, hold and rule that the probationary employment of petitioners set to
eighteen (18) months is legal and valid and that the Regional Director and the Deputy
Minister of Labor and Employment committed no abuse of discretion in ruling
accordingly.

You might also like