1) The probationary employment framework in Philippine labor law

Probationary employment is a recognized category of employment under Philippine labor standards. It is designed as a trial period during which an employer may assess whether a worker meets the standards necessary for regularization, and during which the worker can determine whether the job fits. The law permits probationary employment, but it is tightly regulated because probation is frequently abused as a revolving door to avoid security of tenure.

The central rules are:

Maximum probationary period is generally six (6) months from the employee’s start date.
An employee who is “allowed to work” after the probationary period is typically treated as regular by operation of law.
During probation, the employer may terminate the employee on limited grounds, and the employer carries the burden of proving the ground and compliance with due process.

This topic—terminating “after six months”—is legally sensitive because the moment the probationary period lapses, the employee’s status and the employer’s permissible reasons for termination may change.

2) Why “after six months” is a legal fault line

In practice, “after six months” can mean at least three different timing scenarios, each with different legal consequences:

Termination within the probationary period (on or before the last day of the 6th month, counted from day one of work).
Non-regularization at the end of probation (a decision made within probation, served at or before the end date).
Termination after the probationary period has already lapsed (employee continued working beyond six months, even by a short time).

Philippine labor law generally treats Scenario #3 as termination of a regular employee, not a probationary termination, because the employee has already become regular (unless an exception applies). This is the single most important legal pivot in any case involving “after six months.”

3) The governing legal basis for terminating a probationary employee

A. Valid grounds during probation

A probationary employee may be terminated for any of the following broad categories of lawful grounds:

Just causes (employee fault-based grounds) These are serious grounds such as misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect, fraud, commission of a crime against the employer or co-workers, and analogous causes.
Authorized causes (business/economic grounds) These include redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses, installation of labor-saving devices, closure or cessation of business, and disease under statutory conditions.
Failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known at the time of engagement This is the “probationary-specific” ground. It exists precisely because the employee is on trial.

B. A key limitation: standards must be reasonable and made known at hiring

For termination due to failure to qualify, Philippine doctrine requires that the employer’s performance/qualification standards must be:

Reasonable (job-related, not arbitrary, not impossible to meet)
Communicated to the employee at the time of engagement (or very near it in a manner recognized as compliant, depending on circumstances)

If the standards were not properly communicated, termination for “failure to qualify” is highly vulnerable to being declared illegal.

4) What “after six months” allows—and what it usually does not

A. If the employee is terminated within the six-month probationary period

The employer may rely on:

Failure to qualify (if standards were made known and the evaluation is documented and fair), or
Just cause, or
Authorized cause (with its own separate procedural and monetary requirements).

In this scenario, termination can still be legal, but employers must prove:

the factual basis,
compliance with notice and hearing requirements (for just cause),
and/or compliance with statutory notices and pay (for authorized causes),
plus the probationary standards requirement (if using failure to qualify).

B. If the employee is terminated after six months and the employee continued working beyond the 6th month

In the usual case, the employee has become regular. That means:

The employer cannot terminate the employee using “failure to qualify” as a probationary ground anymore, because probation has ended.
The employer must justify termination under just causes or authorized causes applicable to regular employees, and must comply with the corresponding due process.

This is where many cases fail: employers treat the employee as still probationary even after allowing them to work past the cutoff.

C. Common exception themes (high-level)

There are narrow contexts where probation may be treated differently, but they are exception-heavy and fact-sensitive. Examples in Philippine practice include:

special rules for certain professions or training arrangements,
or circumstances where the probationary period is not the standard six months due to legally recognized arrangements.

Because exceptions are strictly construed, employers relying on them must be prepared to prove their applicability.

5) The core legal grounds, explained in Philippine employment practice

Ground 1: Failure to meet probationary standards (probationary-specific)

What this ground is

It is the employer’s legal ability to decline regularization when the probationary employee does not meet the job’s reasonable standards.

The legal essentials

To make this ground defensible, employers should establish:

Clear, job-related standards Examples: sales targets adjusted for ramp-up, quality and accuracy thresholds, attendance and punctuality rules, competence metrics, customer service KPIs, compliance and ethics rules, role-specific technical tests.
Proof the standards were made known at the time of engagement Best practices include: signed job offer referencing standards, onboarding documents signed by the employee, employee handbook acknowledgement, performance metrics attached to the employment contract, written job description with measurable expectations.
A fair evaluation process Best practices include: periodic coaching, documented feedback, written performance reviews, realistic performance improvement efforts, and consistency with how similarly situated probationary employees are evaluated.
Evidence supporting the conclusion Documents and records matter: metrics reports, incident logs, coaching memos, quality audit results, attendance records, customer complaints with investigation notes.

Common pitfalls that lead to illegality findings

No written standards at hiring.
Standards communicated late, or changed midstream without fair notice.
Vague standards (“must be satisfactory”) without any defined criteria.
Inconsistent enforcement (others with similar performance were regularized).
Termination appears to be a pretext for discrimination, retaliation, union activity, or personal conflict.

Timing trap at six months

If the employer relies on failure to qualify, the safer practice is to ensure the decision and notice occur before the probationary period ends. Allowing the employee to work beyond the probationary period can convert status to regular, undermining this ground.

Ground 2: Just causes (employee fault-based termination)

Probationary employees are not immune from discipline. The same fault-based grounds for termination apply. Common examples in practice:

Serious misconduct: theft, violence, harassment, severe insubordination, major policy violations.
Willful disobedience: refusal to follow lawful and reasonable orders related to work.
Gross and habitual neglect: repeated negligence or severe neglect that shows unwillingness to perform duties.
Fraud or willful breach of trust: falsifying documents, unauthorized transactions, misappropriation.
Commission of a crime: acts against the employer, co-workers, or their property.
Analogous causes: similar gravity and relation to work.

Procedural due process for just cause (Philippine “two-notice rule” in practice)

To validly dismiss for just cause, employers typically must observe:

First written notice States the specific acts/omissions complained of, with enough details (dates, incidents, rules violated), and requires the employee to explain.
Opportunity to be heard Not always a courtroom-style hearing, but a meaningful chance to respond, submit explanation, and present evidence. A conference/hearing is often advisable, especially for contested facts.
Second written notice Communicates the employer’s decision after considering the employee’s explanation and the evidence.

Failures in procedure can result in liability even if the substantive ground exists.

Ground 3: Authorized causes (business/economic grounds)

Authorized causes can justify termination regardless of probationary status, but they require strict statutory compliance. Common authorized causes:

Redundancy: role is unnecessary due to reorganization or duplication.
Retrenchment: cost-cutting to prevent losses (requires proof of actual or imminent substantial losses and fair criteria).
Closure/cessation: business shutting down fully or partially.
Installation of labor-saving devices: automation leading to job elimination.
Disease: illness that cannot be cured within a period and continued employment is prejudicial to the employee’s or co-workers’ health, typically requiring legal/medical prerequisites.

Key compliance themes

Notices to the employee and to the government labor office (commonly a 30-day notice requirement in many authorized causes).
Separation pay where required, with amounts dependent on the specific authorized cause.
Fair and objective selection criteria if only some employees are affected (not arbitrary or discriminatory).

Because authorized cause cases are documentation-heavy, employers must keep financial statements, organizational charts, feasibility studies, or medical certifications, depending on the ground.

6) The “six months” computation: practical legal considerations

A. Counting the six-month probationary period

In practice, employers and employees often dispute whether the employee was terminated “within” or “after” six months. Disputes can hinge on:

Start date vs. first day of actual work
Breaks in service (leaves, suspensions, work interruptions)
Employment contract wording
Company policy on probation computation

Because the legal consequences are significant, accurate computation and clear documentation of start date and probation end date are essential.

B. “Allowed to work” beyond the end date

A frequent pattern is that the employer issues a termination notice slightly late or fails to act by the probation end date. If the employee continues working past the end date—even for a short period—this is commonly treated as regularization by operation of law, shifting the legal standards to those applicable to a regular employee.

7) Documentation that typically matters in Philippine labor disputes

Whether the termination is challenged before labor authorities often depends on paper trails. High-impact documents include:

Employment contract / job offer and probationary clause
Written probationary standards and proof of receipt at engagement
Job description and KPI scorecards
Performance evaluations and coaching records
Attendance records and timekeeping logs
Incident reports, investigation notes, witness statements
Company code of conduct and handbook acknowledgments
Notices (first notice, hearing minutes, second notice) for just cause
DOLE notices and proof of service for authorized causes
Separation pay computations and proof of payment (if applicable)

In disputes, employers generally carry the burden of proving that termination was for a lawful cause and that procedural due process was observed.

8) Typical legal vulnerabilities and how they map to “after six months”

Vulnerability 1: Mislabeling the employee as probationary after lapse

If the employee worked beyond six months, treating them as probationary is risky. The employer may need to meet the higher bar for terminating a regular employee.

Vulnerability 2: No properly communicated standards

Even if performance was poor, termination for failure to qualify can fail if standards were not made known at the time of engagement.

Vulnerability 3: Pretext and bad faith

If the asserted reason (performance) appears to mask an unlawful motive (retaliation, discrimination, union busting), the termination may be invalid.

Vulnerability 4: Procedural defects

Even when a valid substantive ground exists, defective notice and hearing (just cause) or defective statutory notices and separation pay (authorized causes) can create liability.

9) Practical legal classification of the “grounds” when the decision happens at the six-month boundary

A. “Non-regularization” vs. “termination”

In workplace practice, employers often say “non-regularization” to mean “the probationary contract ended.” Legally, if the employee is removed from work, it is still a termination that must be justified by lawful grounds and due process.

B. Performance-based separation must be tethered to standards, not labels

Calling it “end of probation” does not by itself make it legal. The decisive questions are:

Were the standards reasonable and disclosed at engagement?
Was the evaluation supported by evidence?
Was the separation done within the probationary period?
Were procedural requirements satisfied?

10) Remedies and liabilities if termination is found illegal (overview)

When termination is declared illegal, potential consequences commonly include:

Reinstatement (where feasible) without loss of seniority rights, and/or
Backwages from dismissal until reinstatement or finality of decision (depending on the case posture and legal findings), and/or
Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement in some circumstances,
Damages and attorney’s fees in cases showing bad faith or other qualifying conditions,
Monetary awards connected with unpaid wages, benefits, or statutory dues.

Outcomes depend on facts, evidence, and the forum’s findings on substantive and procedural compliance.

11) A structured checklist of legal grounds “after six months”

If an employer seeks to terminate after the employee has already worked beyond six months, the legally safer framing is generally:

Lawful grounds likely available

Just causes (fault-based) with two-notice process and hearing opportunity.
Authorized causes (business/economic/health) with government notice requirements and separation pay where required.

Grounds that are usually not available anymore

Failure to qualify under probationary standards, if probation has already lapsed and the employee continued working.

The decisive factual question

Did the employee continue working beyond the probation end date with the employer’s permission or tolerance?

12) Practical examples of “legal grounds” scenarios

Example 1: Poor performance documented; standards disclosed at hiring; notice served before end date

More defensible as failure to qualify within probation, assuming fair evaluation and documentation.

Example 2: Same poor performance, but employee worked 1–2 weeks past six months

Higher risk: employee likely regular; must terminate under just/authorized causes, not probationary failure to qualify.

Example 3: Serious misconduct on the 7th month

Treat as just cause termination of a regular employee, with proper due process.

Example 4: Role eliminated due to restructuring in the 7th month

Treat as authorized cause (e.g., redundancy), comply with notice requirements and separation pay where applicable.

13) Key takeaways in Philippine context

The six-month limit is central: once the employee is allowed to work beyond it, the employee is generally regular, changing the permissible grounds and the employer’s legal posture.
A probationary termination for failure to qualify is legally defensible only when reasonable standards were made known at engagement and supported by evidence, and when acted upon within the probationary period.
Just causes and authorized causes can apply during or after probation, but they have distinct procedural and documentation requirements.
In disputes, outcomes often turn less on what the employer called the action and more on timing, documented standards, evidence of performance or misconduct, and due process compliance.