Agoy vs NLRC : 112096 : January 30, 1996 : J Francisco : Third Division 4 of 6 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/112096.htm and other recruitment violations. Resolving both motions, the NLRC set aside its decision and held in favor of private respondents. The NLRC backtracked on its conclusion that petitioner was presumed competent on the basis of a trade test and declared that the same was without factual basis. After reviewing the records, the NLRC found that no trade test was ever administered to petitioner because he was hired as a licensed professional engineer and not as an ordinary skilled worker to whom the trade test is normally applied. Thus, it was ruled that petitioners competence could be determined only during the probationary period, and as it turned out, petitioner failed to meet respondent employers standard during the said period thereby leading to his dismissal.10 The NLRC also discarded petitioners allegation that he was merely forced to agree to his dismissal as the record is bereft of any evidence of force and intimidation perpetrated by respondent employer. According to the NLRC, petitioner failed to raise any objection to his dismissal despite being given the opportunity to do so in the letter of termination dated April 2, 1990, and instead simply acknowledged receipt of the same and affixed his signature thereto. The NLRC found merit in private respondents claim that as a civil engineer with outstanding credentials, it was doubtful that petitioner would be intimidated and forced to sign his notice of termination without making any objections. In arriving at this conclusion, the NLRC took into account the additional documentary evidence submitted by petitioner attesting to his claim of professional excellence which should entitle him to the additional monetary awards prayed for in his motion for reconsideration.11 In assailing the NLRC resolution reversing its earlier decision in his favor, petitioner asserts that its conclusion with respect to his competence is clearly the result of a biased negative emotional conception of the totality of the facts.12 This Court has consistently adhered to the rule that in reviewing administrative decisions such as those rendered by the NLRC, the findings of fact made therein are to be accorded not only great weight and respect, but even finality, for as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.13 It is not the function of the Court to once again review and weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of the witnesses or otherwise substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency of the evidence.14 Nevertheless, when the inference made or the conclusion drawn on the basis of certain state of facts is manifestly mistaken, the Court is not estopped from exercising its power of review.15 Public respondent NLRC premised the reversal of its decision and the affirmation of the validity of petitioners dismissal on the latters alleged failure to qualify for the position of Road Engineer as contracted for during the probationary period. Probationary employees, notwithstanding their limited tenure, are also entitled to security of tenure. Thus, except for just cause as provided by law or under the employment contract, a probationary employee cannot be terminated.16 As explicitly provided under Article 281 of the Labor Code, a probationary employee may be terminated on two grounds: (a) for just cause or (b) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement.17 Respondents attempt to justify petitioners dismissal based on the aforecited second ground is unwarranted. The record is bereft of any evidence to show that respondent employer ever conveyed to petitioner-employee the standards or requirements that he must comply with in order to become a regular employee. In fact, petitioner has consistently denied that he was even given the chance to qualify for the position for which he was contracted.18 Private respondent Al-Khodaris general averments regarding petitioners failure to meet its standards for regular employment, which were not even corroborated by any other evidence, are insufficient to justify petitioners dismissal. 1/20/2016 8:48 PM