For resources about illegal dismissal, due process; employe rights vis-à-vis employer prerogative, please go HERE


A Supreme Court (of the Philippines) jurisprudence suggest this.

For years, employers are on their toes to make sure that the sixth month of employment of probationary employees are monitored and no unqualified probationary employees will be regularized. Likewise, proper serving of the following documents is a must:

  1. Discussion of employment standards/expectation levelling
  2. Job description
  3. Performance appraisal
  4. Employment contracts and
  5. Observance of twin notice rule

This is to ensure the decision to end an employee’s probationary contract will not be construed as whimsical.


READ: 6 months have lapsed, but still no regularization contract

But a Supreme Court  jurisprudence about a case of a supervisor who failed to qualify as a permanent employee  is rather interesting.

On the 6th month, the Supervisor was not allowed to time in and as a result, he sued the company for illegally dismissing him.  But the court says there is no termination or dismissal but rather an expiration of his 6 month probationary contract.

Likewise:   Probationary Period Extension?


READ: Employee Resignation and Due Process


This decision of the NLRC was upheld by the Court of  Appeals which says :

” Even assuming, arguendo, that petitioner was not informed of the reasonable standards required of him by Middleby, the same is not crucial because there is no termination to speak of but rather expiration of contract. Petitioner loses sight of the fact that his employment was probationary, contractual in nature, and one with a
definite period. At the expiration of the period stipulated in the contract, his appointment was deemed terminated and a notice or termination letter informing him of the non-renewal of his contract was not necessary.

While probationary employees enjoy security of tenure such that they cannot be removed except for just cause as provided by law, such protection extends only during the period of probation. Once that period expired, the constitutional protection could no longer be invoked. Legally speaking, petitioner was not illegally dismissed. His contract merely expired. “

Likewise:   DMIT: A New Tool For Talent Management?

The Supreme Court also upheld the decision made by both NLRC and Court of appeals:

G.R. No. 149859 June 9, 2004

..But we have ruled in Manlimos et al VS NLRC that this constitutional protection ends on the expiration of the probationary period. On that date, the parties are free to either renew or terminate their contract of employment. Manlimos concluded that “(t)his development has rendered moot the question of whether there was a just cause for the dismissal of the petitioners xxx.”

To get a grasp of this case,  read the complete text of the decision here or copy paste this address to your browser:


Disclaimer: The articles found on this blog does not constitute legal advise, and engagement/discussion does not signify professional client relationship. Likewise, subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to, or repeal of, laws, rules and regulations may have rendered the whole or part of this article inaccurate or obsolete.



About the author

Sonnie is an experienced strategist for employer branding and communications; and people/ organization management and development.

He also received two awards, one for his advocacy on digital accountability, and another for the use of blog for mentoring.

He co-founded Blogwatch in 2009. Thru this initiative, bloggers voice were heard in convo involving national issues.

He co- founded LODI Inc. (Learning and Organization Development, Inc.) in 2018 as an offshoot to his year long #HRMentoring program.

This serves as the favicon of ASKSonnie

Receive 'value adding'

contents in your inbox!

Thanks for subscribing!