You are on page 1of 3

APPRENTICESHIP AGREEMENT, Validity

Atlanta Industries, Inc.


And/Or
Robert Chan, v. Aprilito R. Sebolino, Khim V.Costales, Et. Al.
G.R. No. 187320, January 26, 2011Brion,:

FACTS:
Atlanta Industries, Inc. (petitioner) is a domestic corporation engaged in the man
ufacture of steelpipes. Almoite and Costales (respondents) were employed
by petitioner as early as December 2003,while Sebolino and Sagun were
employed as early as March 2004. Respondents occupied positionssuch as
machine operator, extruder operator and scaleman. Two apprenticeship
agreements wereentered between Atlanta Industries, Inc. and private
respondents, one in 2004 and the other in 2005. After the second apprenticeship
agreement expired the respondents were dismissed, hence they fileda case for
illegal dismissal. In defense, Atlanta Industries, Inc. argued that the workers were
notentitled to regularization and to their money claims because they were
engaged as apprentices under a governmentapproved 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 hadtrained. They also claimed that their names
did not appear in the list of employees (Master List) prior totheir engagement as
apprentices.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the apprenticeship agreements were valid.
HELD:
NO. The first and second apprenticeship agreements were defective as they were
executed in violationof the law and the rules. The agreements did not indicate
the trade or occupation in which theapprentice would be trained; neither was the
apprenticeship program approved by the
TechnicalEducation and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). Moreover, with th
e expiration of the firstagreement and the retention of the employees, the
employer, to all intents and purposes, recognizedthe completion of their training
and their acquisition of a regular employee status. To foist upon themthe second
apprenticeship agreement for a second skill which was not even mentioned in
theagreement itself, is a violation of the Labor Codes implementing rules and is
an act manifestly unfair to the employees.

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, Regular Employment


Atlanta Industries, Inc.
And/Or
Robert Chan, v. Aprilito R. Sebolino, Khim V.Costales, Et. Al.
G.R. No. 187320, January 26, 2011Brion,

FACTS:
Atlanta Industries, Inc. (petitioner) is a domestic corporation engaged in the man
ufacture of steelpipes. Almoite and Costales (respondents) were employed
by petitioner as early as December 2003,while Sebolino and Sagun were
employed as early as March 2004. Respondents occupied positionssuch as
machine operator, extruder operator and scaleman. Two apprenticeship
agreements wereentered between Atlanta Industries, Inc. and private
respondents, one in 2004 and the other in 2005. After the second apprenticeship
agreement expired the respondents were dismissed, hence they fileda case for
illegal dismissal. In defense, Atlanta Industries, Inc. argued that the workers were
notentitled to regularization and to their money claims because they were
engaged as apprentices under a governmentapproved 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 hadtrained. They also claimed that their names
did not appear in the list of employees (Master List) prior totheir engagement as
apprentices.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents were already employees when they were required to
undergoapprenticeship.
HELD:
YES. The respondent employees were already rendering service to the company
when they weremade to undergo apprenticeship. The respondent were regular
employees because they occupiedpositions such as machine operator,
scaleman and extruder operator tasks that are usuallynecessary and desirable
in petitioner employers usual business or trade as manufacturer of
plasticbuilding materials. These tasks and their nature characterized the
respondents as regular employeesunder Article 280 of the Labor Code. Thus,
when they were dismissed without just or authorizedcause, without notice, and
without the opportunity to be heard, their dismissal was illegal under thelaw.