Practice question
An employer relies on old cases involving probationary teaching personnel to argue that every illegally dismissed probationary employee, including a factory worker governed by the ordinary Labor Code framework, can recover only to the probation period’s end. What is the central error under C.P. Reyes?
- Teaching and factory work are always governed by identical special regulations.
- Probationary workers never have security of tenure.
- Backwages are available only to public teachers.
- The argument generalizes special academic-employment rulings and ignores the main decision’s rule for illegally dismissed non-academic probationary employees.
- The Court abolished probationary employment.
Legal references
- Labor Code, DOLE consolidated 2022 edition, Articles 219, 258–260, 262–264, 274 and 278–279: https://natlex.ilo.org/dyn/natlex2/natlex2/files/download/15242/PHL15242%202022.pdf; Article 294.
- C.P. Reyes Hospital v Barbosa, G.R. No. 228357, April 16, 2024, en banc main decision, probationary backwages and academic-employment qualification: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/apr2024/gr_228357_2024.html
- Bustamante v NLRC, G.R. No. 111651, November 28, 1996, en banc resolution, full backwages without deduction of earnings elsewhere: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/nov1996/gr_111651_1996.html
- Angono Medics Hospital v Agabin, G.R. No. 202542, December 9, 2020, separation pay and backwages: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/dec2020/gr_202542_2020.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.