83 Atlanta Industries Inc Vs Sebolino Et Al

Atlanta Industries, Inc. and/or Robert Chan vs. Aprilito R. Sebolino, Khim V.
Costales, Alvin Almoite, and

Joseph S. Sagun
GR No. 187320 || January 28, 2011 || Ponente: Brion, J. || Topic: Training and Employment of Special
Workers - Apprentice
Facts:
In early 2005, i) Aprilito Sebolino, ii) Khim Costales, iii) Alvin Almoite, iv) Joseph Sagun, v)
Agosto Zaño, vi) Domingo Alegria, Jr., vii) Ronie Ramos, viii) Edgar Villagomez, ix) Melvin Pedregoze,
x) Teonases Chion, Jr., xi) Leonardo dela Cruz, xii) Arnold Magalang, and xiii) Saturino Mabanag filed
several complaints for illegal dismissal, regularization, underpayment, nonpayment of wages, and other
money claims, as well as claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against Atlanta
Industries, Inc. (a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of steel pipes) and its President and
Chief Operating Officer Robert Chan, before the Labor Arbiter, alleging that:
a) they had attained regular status as they were allowed to work with Atlanta for more than six (6)
months from the start of a purported apprenticeship agreement between them and the company,
and
b) they were illegally dismissed when the apprenticeship agreement expired.
Atlanta and Chan refuted these allegations by arguing that the workers were not entitled to regularization
and to their money claims because they were engaged as apprentices under a government-approved
apprenticeship program. The company offered to hire them as regular employees in the event vacancies for
regular positions occur in the section of the plant where they had trained. They also claimed that their
names did not appear in the list of employees (Master List) prior to their engagement as apprentices. On
May 24, 2005, dela Cruz, Magalang, Zaño, and Chiong executed a Pagtalikod at Pagwawalang Saysay
before the Labor Arbiter. On April 24, 2006, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint with respect to the
aforementioned four but found the termination of service of the remaining nine to be illegal. Consequetnly,
the arbiter awarded the following: i) backwages, ii) wage differentials, iii) holiday pay, and iv) service
incentive leave pay.
Atlanta appealed the LA ruling before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On
October 10, 2006, during the duration of the said appeal, Ramos, Alegria, Villagomez, Costales, and
Almoite, five of the nine remaining allegedly entered into a compromise agreement with Atlanta, the latter
providing the former parties (except Ramos) a special amount as settlement, and to acknowledge them at
the same time as regular employees. On December 29, 2006, the NLRC rendered its ruling by modifying
the finding of the LA as follows:
i) withdrawing the illegal dismissal finding with respect to Sagun, Mabanag, Sebolino, and
Pedragoze;
ii) affirming the dismissal of the complaints of dela Cruz, Zaño, Magalang, and Chiong;
iii) approving the compromise agreement Costales, Ramos, Villagomez, Almoite, and Alegria; and
iv) denying all other claims.
Upon the rejection of the motion for reconsideration filed by Sebolino, Costales, Almoite, and Sagun, the
latter parties proceeded to appeal their case before the CA (Rule 65 ROC), of which was granted on the
following grounds:
i) That the latter parties were already employees of the company before they entered into the first
and second apprenticeship agreements, as evidenced by Atlanta’s monthly report for the CPS
Department/Section indicating the Production and Work Schedules of the parties.
ii) The first and second apprenticeship agreements were defective as they were executed in
violation of the law and the rules for these agreements did not indicate the trade or occupation in
which the apprentice would be trained, neither was the apprenticeship program approved by the
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA).
iii) The positions occupied by the same employees, namely as machine operator, extruder
operator, and scaleman, are usually necessary and desirable in the manufacture of plastic building
materials, the company’s main business; hence, they were regular employees whose dismissals
where illegal for lack of a just cause or authorize cause, and for lack of notice.
iv) The compromise agreement entered into by Costales, Almoite, Ramos, Villagomez, and
Alegria, was not binding on Costales and Almoite because they did not sign the agreement.(This
was refuted by Atlanta on the ground that they admitted that they had already regularized Costales
and Almoite.)
Issue(s):
i. WoN the CA erred in finding Costales, Almoite, Sebolino, and Sagun, as employees on the ground
of the Monthly Report and the Production and Work Schedule, disregarding the fact that the same
persons do not appear in the Master List of employees employed by Atlanta?
Ruling:
SC:
The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the CA, denying this appeal filed by Atlanta on the
ground that the employees have sufficiently proven that they were illegally dismissed since they were
already employees when they were required to undergo the apprenticeship agreement, and that the
apprenticeship agreements they entered into were invalid.
i. With regards the bearing of the Monthly Report and the Production Work Schedule:
a. The SC reiterated that the CA properly appreciated the aforementioned documents as proof of
employment of the four employees prior to their respective apprenticeship agreements.
b. Furthermore, the CA was deemed correct in not giving value to the Master List of Employees
presented by Atlanta on the ground that the same document was illegible.
c. The nature of the work of the employees were deemed as usually necessary and desirable in
Atlanta’s usual business or trade as manufacturer of plastic building materials; hence they are
of the nature of regular employees under Art. 280 of the Labor Code.
d. With all the aforementioned point, it can be concluded that indeed, there was illegal dismissal
that occurred for just or authorized cause, notice, and opportunity to be heard were lacking in
the instant cases.
i. Even if, indeed there was a valid first apprenticeship agreement, the subsequent
employment of the four employees were, in accordance to the Labor Code’s
implementing rules, was a recognition that the same persons had completed their
training and consequently acquired their regular status.
ii. Furthermore, the compromise agreement bearing the names of Costales and Almoite
were not binding on the same for did not sign the said document.
Doctrine:
The subsequent hiring of apprentices after their respective apprenticeship agreements is proof that
they completed their training and acquired their regular status.

83 Atlanta Industries Inc Vs Sebolino Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

83 Atlanta Industries Inc Vs Sebolino Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

83 Atlanta Industries Inc Vs Sebolino Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atlanta Industries, Inc. and/or Robert Chan vs. Aprilito R. Sebolino, Khim V.

Costales, Alvin Almoite, and

You might also like