Introduction

In the Philippine employment landscape, the distinction between probationary and regular employees is a fundamental aspect of labor relations, primarily governed by the Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended). Probationary employment serves as a trial period for employers to assess an employee's fitness for regularization, while regular employment offers greater security of tenure. A common query arises in organizational hierarchies: Can a probationary employee, who is still under evaluation themselves, legitimately evaluate the performance of a regular employee? This article explores this topic comprehensively, examining the legal framework, practical implications, potential limitations, and related considerations within the Philippine context. While the Labor Code does not explicitly prohibit such evaluations, the analysis hinges on principles of authority, fairness, due process, and company policy.

Definitions and Key Concepts

To fully address the query, it is essential to define the relevant terms under Philippine labor law:

Probationary Employee: Under Article 296 (formerly Article 281) of the Labor Code, a probationary employee is one engaged for a trial period not exceeding six months from the date of hiring. During this time, the employer evaluates the employee's qualifications, skills, and compatibility with the job. The probationary period allows termination without just cause if the employee fails to meet reasonable standards, provided these standards were made known at the time of engagement. However, probationary employees enjoy certain rights, including due process in termination and protection against illegal dismissal.
Regular Employee: Article 295 (formerly Article 280) classifies regular employment as that where the employee performs activities necessary or desirable to the employer's business, or where employment exceeds the probationary period. Regular employees have security of tenure, meaning they can only be dismissed for just or authorized causes under Articles 297-299 (formerly Articles 282-284), with strict adherence to procedural due process.
Evaluation: In the employment context, evaluation refers to the assessment of an employee's performance, conduct, or productivity. This may involve performance appraisals, feedback forms, or reports that influence decisions on promotions, salary adjustments, bonuses, disciplinary actions, or terminations. Evaluations are typically conducted by supervisors or managers as part of managerial prerogatives.

The interplay between these statuses becomes relevant when a probationary employee holds a supervisory or managerial role, potentially overseeing regular employees.

Legal Framework Governing Evaluations

Philippine labor law does not directly address whether a probationary employee can evaluate a regular one. The Labor Code focuses on the rights and obligations of employees based on their status but does not impose restrictions on who can perform evaluations solely due to probationary tenure. Instead, the framework is built on broader principles:

Managerial Prerogative: Employers have the inherent right to manage their business, including the delegation of authority to evaluate employees. This is rooted in jurisprudence, such as in San Miguel Brewery Sales Force Union v. Ople (1989), where the Supreme Court affirmed that management can organize its workforce and assign duties as it sees fit, provided it does not violate the law, collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), or general principles of justice. Thus, if a company assigns evaluative duties to a probationary supervisor, this falls within managerial discretion.
Hierarchy and Authority: Employment structures often involve hierarchies where supervisors evaluate subordinates, irrespective of the supervisor's employment status. The Labor Code does not mandate that evaluators must be regular employees. For instance, a newly hired probationary manager in a department may need to assess team members, including long-term regular staff, to fulfill their role. Denying this authority could undermine the probationary employee's ability to demonstrate their managerial capabilities during the trial period.
Due Process and Fairness: Any evaluation, regardless of the evaluator's status, must comply with due process requirements. Under Department Order No. 147-15 (Rules on Employee Regularization and Standards), evaluations should be based on objective criteria communicated in advance. If a probationary employee's evaluation leads to adverse actions against a regular employee (e.g., demotion or dismissal), the regular employee is entitled to notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to defend themselves, as per Wenphil Corporation v. NLRC (1989). Bias or incompetence in evaluation could render it invalid, potentially leading to claims of constructive dismissal or unfair labor practices.
Prohibition on Discrimination: Article 3 of the Labor Code promotes equal work opportunities without discrimination. Evaluations must be impartial, and a probationary evaluator cannot use their position to unfairly target regular employees. Violations could invoke remedies under the Labor Code or related laws like Republic Act No. 10911 (Anti-Age Discrimination in Employment Act) if other factors are involved, though probationary status alone does not constitute discrimination.
Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) and Company Policies: Many workplaces are governed by CBAs or internal policies that may specify who conducts evaluations. For unionized settings, Article 255 (formerly Article 240) requires CBAs to cover evaluation procedures. If a CBA restricts evaluations to regular supervisors, a probationary employee might be barred. Similarly, company handbooks or HR policies could impose such limitations to ensure credibility and stability in assessments.

Analysis: Permissibility and Practical Considerations

Based on the absence of explicit prohibitions in the Labor Code, a probationary employee can evaluate a regular employee under certain conditions:

Permissibility in Law: There is no statutory bar. Probationary employees are fully empowered to perform their assigned duties during the trial period, including supervisory functions. In D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. NLRC (2001), the Supreme Court emphasized that probationary employees are subject to the same rules as regulars except for security of tenure. Thus, if the job description includes evaluation, they can do so. This aligns with the purpose of probation: to test the employee's ability in real-world scenarios.
Potential Challenges:
- Credibility Issues: A probationary evaluator might lack experience or permanence, leading regular employees to question the evaluation's validity. In disputes, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) or courts may scrutinize such evaluations more closely for objectivity.
- Conflict of Interest: If the probationary employee's own regularization depends on their performance, they might be incentivized to overly criticize subordinates to appear decisive, potentially leading to grievances.
- Termination Implications: If a probationary supervisor's negative evaluation contributes to a regular employee's dismissal, the latter can file an illegal dismissal case. The burden is on the employer to prove just cause, and a flawed evaluation process could weaken their defense.
- Industry-Specific Nuances: In sectors like education (governed by the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools) or government (Civil Service rules), additional regulations might require evaluators to have certain tenures or qualifications, indirectly affecting probationary employees.
Best Practices for Employers:
- Clearly define roles in employment contracts.
- Train probationary supervisors on fair evaluation methods.
- Implement review mechanisms where higher management validates probationary-led evaluations.
- Ensure compliance with DOLE guidelines on performance management.
Employee Rights and Remedies:
- Regular employees aggrieved by a probationary evaluation can seek redress through internal grievance procedures, DOLE mediation, or NLRC complaints.
- Probationary employees, if restricted from evaluating, might argue it hinders their probationary assessment, potentially claiming unfair labor practices under Article 259 (formerly Article 248).

Relevant Jurisprudence

While no Supreme Court decision directly tackles this exact scenario, analogous cases provide guidance:

Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corp. v. Chrysler Philippines Labor Union (2004): Highlighted that evaluations must be substantive and procedural, regardless of who conducts them.
Abbott Laboratories v. NLRC (1997): Stressed that probationary periods test overall fitness, implying probationary supervisors should exercise full duties, including evaluations.
International Catholic Migration Commission v. NLRC (1988): Affirmed that managerial acts, like assessments, are valid if not abusive.

These cases underscore that the focus is on the evaluation's fairness, not the evaluator's status.

Conclusion

In summary, under Philippine labor law, a probationary employee can evaluate a regular employee, as there is no explicit prohibition in the Labor Code or related regulations. This permissibility stems from managerial prerogatives and the need for probationary employees to fully demonstrate their capabilities. However, such evaluations must adhere to principles of due process, objectivity, and non-discrimination, with potential oversight from CBAs or company policies. Employers should exercise caution to avoid disputes, while employees retain avenues for challenge. Ultimately, the practice promotes efficient workplace dynamics but requires balanced implementation to uphold labor rights. For specific cases, consulting a labor lawyer or the Department of Labor and Employment is advisable to navigate nuances.