CEBU ROYAL PLANT (CRP) V.

MINISTER OF LABOR AND RAMON PILONES (PILONES)

G.R. NO. L-58639, 12 AUGUST 1987
DOCTRINE:
ARTICLE 282 OF THE LABOR CODE: AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS ALLOWED TO WORK AFTER
A PROBATIONARY PERIOD SHALL BE CONSIDERED A REGULAR EMPLOYEE
ART. II SEC. 18 OF THE CONSTITUTION: THE STATE AFFIRMS LABOR AS A PRIMARY
SOCIAL ECONOMIC FORCE. IT SHALL PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS AND PROMOTE
THEIR WELFARE.
FACTS:
1. Pilones was employed on February 16, 1978 by CRP on a
probationary period of employment for 6 months. His work
involved handling the raw materials used in the manufacturing of
soft drinks.
2. After the 6-month period, Pilones underwent medical examination
for qualification as regular employee but the results showed that
he is suffering from PTB Minimal, or Tuberculosis. He was informed
of the termination of his employment on August 21, 1978 (4 days
after his probationary period) since his illness was not curable
within 6 months.
3. Pilones complained to the then Ministry of Labor (MOLE), and the
same was dismissed by the Regional Director. The Deputy Minister
of Labor then reversed the order, and ordered the reinstatement
of Pilones.
ISSUE: Whether or not Pilones dismissal was proper
HELD AND RULING:
NO. IT WAS NOT PROPER. Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an
employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be
considered a regular employee. In this case, Pilones was already on
permanent status when he was dismissed on August 21, 1978 which is
four days after he ceased to be a probationary employee. As such,
Private Respondent could validly claim the security of tenure
guaranteed to him by the Art. II Sec. 18 of the Constitution and the Art.
282 of the Labor Code.
CRP claims that they were not able to terminate Pilones
employment immediately as they had to wait for the results of his X-
ray examination (the same was conducted on August 17, 1978). The
Supreme Court found such an excuse untenable as CRP had the whole
6-month period to conduct the examination, yet they waited until the
end of said period to do so.
DISPOSITION: Petition dismissed. The Order of the public respondent is affirmed, but with
the modification that the back wages shall be limited to three years only and the private
respondent shall be reinstated only upon certification by a competent public health authority
that he is fit to return to work.

4. The Deputy Minister of Labor held that because Pilones was

terminated after his probationary period, he was a permanent
employee and thus had security of tenure.

5. CRP, now ordered to reinstate Pilones, appealed before the

Supreme Court. It argued that the Private Respondent was still on
probation at the time of his dismissal and hence had no security of
tenure.

FEVIDAL JLS