Abbott Labs v.

Alcaraz

Facts: Abbot Laboratories, a pharmaceutical company, published a job posting for a Medical
and Regulatory Affairs Manager in a major broadsheet newspaper. Alcaraz was a Regulatory
Affairs and Information Manager at Aventis Pasteur Philippines when she saw Abbott
Laboratories’ job posting in a newspaper. Alcaraz applied as a Regulatory Affairs Manager with
Abbott Laboratories. The employment contract that was entered into stated that Alcaraz would
be employed on a probationary basis, to be placed on probation for a period of 6 months. She
was later briefed on her duties and responsibilities during her pre-employment orientation. The
HR director also sent her an e-mail containing an explanation of the procedure for evaluating
the performance of probationary employees (job performance should be formally reviewed and
discussed with the employees on the third and fifth month from the date of employment; the
necessary improvement plan should also be made during the third-month review in case of gap
between the employee’s performance and the standards set; these performance standards
should be discussed in detail within the first 2 weeks on the job). Alcaraz was also informed that
Abbott only had one evaluation system for all of its employees.

Only 3 months after the signing of the employment contract, Alcaraz was requested to resign
for failure to meet the standards for regularization (failed to manage her time efficiently; failed
to gain the trust of her staff and to build an effective rapport with them; failed to train her staff
effectively; and was not able to obtain the knowledge and ability to make sound judgements on
case processing and article review which were necessary for the proper performance of her
duties).

She was told that regardless of her choice to resign, she should no longer report for work and
was asked to surrender her office identification cards.

The next day, she told her admin assistant that she would be on leave but her admin assistant
said that it was already announced to the whole staff that Alcaraz had resigned due to health
reasons. Feeling aggrieved, Alcaraz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Petitioner’s Argument: Alcaraz claimed that Abbott failed to inform her of the reasonable
standards for her regularization pursuant to Art 295 of the Labor Code. She was informed of her
duties; she was informed of the evaluation procedure; but she was NOT informed of the exact
metrics like how exactly her performance would be measured.

Respondent’s Argument: Abbot claimed that they sufficiently complied with the requirement.
Her employment contract stated that she would be placed on probation for a period of 6
months; she was sent copies of Abbott’s organizational structure and her job description
through e-mail; she was made to undergo a pre-employment orientation where she was
informed that she had to implement Abbott’s Code of Conduct and office policies; she was
required to undergo a training program as part of her orientation; she received copies of
Abbott’s Performance Modules from the HR Director who explained to her the procedure for
evaluating the performance of probationary employees & that Abbott had only one evaluation
system for all its employees; and Alcaraz had previously worked for another pharmaceutical
company and had admitted to have an “extensive training and background” to acquire the
necessary skills for her job.

Rulings: Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Abbott; NLRC reversed; CA affirmed the NLRC decision

Relevant Issue: WON Alcaraz was sufficiently informed of the reasonable standards to qualify
her as a regular employee

SC Ruling: YES. Alcaraz was well-appraised of her employer’s expectations that would, in turn,
determine her regularization. Verily, basic knowledge and common sense dictate that the
adequate performance of one’s duty is, by and of itself, an inherent and implied standard for a
probationary employee to be regularized. Such standard for regularization need not be literally
spelled out or mapped into technical indicators in every case.

An employer is deemed to have made known the standards that would qualify a probationary
employee to be a regular employee when it has exerted reasonable efforts to apprise the
employee of what he/she is expected to do to accomplish during the trial of probation.

The exception to the foregoing is when the job is self-descriptive in nature, for instance, in the
case of maids, cooks, drivers, or messengers.

The dismissal was based on just cause under Art 297 of the Labor Code, but the employer in
this case failed to comply with the notice requirement – Valid dismissal + nominal damages