Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 354 views

    HOLIDAY INN MANILA Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Balaod Maricor
    Elena Honasan was hired by Holiday Inn Manila for an initial three-week on-the-job training period, after which she was employed on a six-month probationary basis until November 1991. Honasan was dismissed four days before the end of the probationary period. The Supreme Court ruled that Honasan's probation exceeded the maximum six-month period under the law. Even if the three-week training period was not considered part of the probation, Honasan's six-month probationary period would have ended in mid-October, making her dismissal illegal as she had already acquired full employee status and security of tenure by that point. The Court found in favor of Honasan, ruling that her dismissal was illegal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    HOLIDAY INN MANILA Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Balaod Maricor
    354 views2 pages
    Elena Honasan was hired by Holiday Inn Manila for an initial three-week on-the-job training period, after which she was employed on a six-month probationary basis until November 1991. Honasan was dismissed four days before the end of the probationary period. The Supreme Court ruled that Honasan's probation exceeded the maximum six-month period under the law. Even if the three-week training period was not considered part of the probation, Honasan's six-month probationary period would have ended in mid-October, making her dismissal illegal as she had already acquired full employee status and security of tenure by that point. The Court found in favor of Honasan, ruling that her dismissal was illegal

    Original Description:

    HOLIDAY INN MANILA vs nlrc

    Original Title

    HOLIDAY INN MANILA vs nlrc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Elena Honasan was hired by Holiday Inn Manila for an initial three-week on-the-job training period, after which she was employed on a six-month probationary basis until November 1991. Honasan was dismissed four days before the end of the probationary period. The Supreme Court ruled that Honasan's probation exceeded the maximum six-month period under the law. Even if the three-week training period was not considered part of the probation, Honasan's six-month probationary period would have ended in mid-October, making her dismissal illegal as she had already acquired full employee status and security of tenure by that point. The Court found in favor of Honasan, ruling that her dismissal was illegal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    354 views2 pages

    HOLIDAY INN MANILA Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Balaod Maricor
    Elena Honasan was hired by Holiday Inn Manila for an initial three-week on-the-job training period, after which she was employed on a six-month probationary basis until November 1991. Honasan was dismissed four days before the end of the probationary period. The Supreme Court ruled that Honasan's probation exceeded the maximum six-month period under the law. Even if the three-week training period was not considered part of the probation, Honasan's six-month probationary period would have ended in mid-October, making her dismissal illegal as she had already acquired full employee status and security of tenure by that point. The Court found in favor of Honasan, ruling that her dismissal was illegal

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    43

    Holiday Inn Manila And/Or Hubert Liner And Baby Disquitado


    versus
    National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division) And Elena Honasan
    G.R. No. 109114, September 14, 1993

    FACTS:

    Elena Honasan applied for employment with the Holiday Inn and was on April 15,
    1991, accepted for on the job training as a telephone operator for a period of three weeks.
    For her services, she received food and transportation allowance. On May 13, 1992, after
    completing her training, she was employed on a probationary basis for a period of six
    months ending November 12, 1991.

    Her employment contract stipulated that he Hotel could terminated her probationary
    employment at any time prior to the expiration of the six-month period in the event of her
    failure (a) to learn or progress in her job (b) to Faithfully observe and comply with the
    hotel rules and the instructions and orders of her superiors or (c) to perform her duties
    according to hotel standards. On November 8, 1991, four days before the expiration of the
    stipulated deadline, Holiday In notified her of her dismissal, on the ground that her
    performance had not come up to the standards of the Hotel. Through counsel, Honasan
    filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that she was already a regular employee
    at the time of her separation and so was entitled to full security of tenure.

    ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Elena Honasan is illegally dismissed.

    SUPREME COURT RULING:

    We find that Honasan was placed by the petitioner on probation twice, first during her
    on-the-job training for three weeks, and next during another period of six months,
    ostensibly in accordance with Article 281. Her probation clearly exceeded the period of
    six months prescribed by this article. Probation is the period during which the employer
    may determine if the employee is qualified for possible inclusion in the regular force. In
    the case at bar, the period was for three weeks, during Honasan's on-the-job training.
    When her services were continued after this training, the petitioners in effect recognized
    that she had passed probation and was qualified to be a regular employee. Honasan was
    certainly under observation during her three-week on-the-job training. If her services
    proved unsatisfactory then, she could have been dropped as early as during that period.
    But she was not. On the contrary, her services were continued, presumably because they
    were acceptable, although she was formally placed this time on probation.

    Even if it be supposed that the probation did not end with the three-week period of on-
    the-job training, there is still no reason why that period should not be included in the
    stipulated six-month period of probation. Honasan was accepted for on-the-job training
    on April 15, 1991. Assuming that her probation could be extended beyond that date, it
    nevertheless could continue only up to October 15, 1991, after the end of six months from
    the earlier date. Under this more lenient approach, she had become a regular employee of
    Holiday Inn and acquired full security of tenure as of October 15, 1991.
    44

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy