You are on page 1of 9

THE PARTIES

1. Respondent, Tele-Skills Call Center is a sole proprietorship


engages in business process outsourcing (BPO), owned by spouses, Mary
Ann Alegada and Alberto Alegada Jr, being impleaded herein in their
capacity as an Officer thereof, with an office address at 3 rd Floor Arguelles
Building, Arguelles Street, Jaro, Iloilo City.

2. Complainant, Rowena May Morante is a former trainee of


respondent who failed to finish the training agreement.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

3. This is the case of Illegal Dismissal and money claims for the
actual training days undergone by the complainant;

4. The case was set for final mediation last September 10, 2015 but
the parties failed to come up with reasonable Compromised Agreement,
hence, they were directed to file their respective Position Paper.

STATEMENT OF THE RELEVANT ACTS

5. The complainant Rowena May Morante (Morante for brevity)


started its stints as trainee of the respondent on May 8, 2015. The
complainant and the respondent entered into a contract of Employee
Agreement for Training Period which covers twenty (20) working days,
commencing on May 8, 2015 and terminating on June 8, 2015;

A copy of Employee Agreement for Training Period is hereto


attached as Annex 1 and made an integral part hereof.

6. The terms of Employee Agreement for Training under


Termination of Training/Employment and Miscellaneous:

5.1. Notwithstanding anything contain


herein to the contrary, this Agreement shall be
immediately terminable by the company for
cause ......
5.3. Non-completion of the Training
Period and

6. Miscellaneous
..........FAIL: Failed Trainee will be
automatically terminated from the company.
Training days will not be paid
7. On 2 June 2015, which is the complainant last training day,
untoward incident happened, she vomited in the work place and complained
to the Account Manager Ronah Joy C. Alvarez, that she is not feeling well.
Upon knowing the incident, the respondent approached the complainant and
advised her to take a rest.

The respondent told the complainant that she will look for a daytime
training schedule that will be more favorable to the complainant and to avoid
any untowards incident in relation to the complainants health conditions.

8. Considering the fact that the respondent finds it hard time to look
for an appropriate training schedule that would fit the health condition of
complainant, it took several days for it to call, informing the same about her
new training schedule. Unfortunately, when they already find an excellent
time that tailored fit for complainants, she never answered any of its call,
neither received a return call from her.

Hence, respondent assumed that she is no longer interested in the


resumption of her training.

9. Three (3) months after the last training day of the complainant,
the respondent received a call from the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration that
there was a complaint against them and the schedule for the first (1 st)
mandatory mediation was set last August 26, 2015. The respondent where
shocked when the complainant joined the other former employees of the
respondents company in filing a labor case against the company.

10. The complainant allegedly was terminated summarily from its


training without any valid grounds and was not paid .The complaint
premised on the presupposition that the complainant is entitled to be paid for
the training period despite her failure to finish the contract period for
training.

ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED


TO THE FOUTEEN (14) DAYS TRAINING PERIOD DESPITE HER
FAILURE TO FINISH THE SAME UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT STATES THAT THE
TRAINING DAYS WILL NOT BE PAID IF THE TRAINEE FAILS TO
FINISH THE TRAINING PERIOD; and

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE SUMMARY TERMINATION IS


A VALID EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE AS
PROVIDED BY LAW AND EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE.
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

Contract constitutes the law


between the parties.

11. Settled is the rule that contract is considered valid until and
unless annulled by the competent Court for being contrary to law, moral and
public policy, it is considered as paramount law between parties that will
regulate their dealings.

Since the non-payment of the training fees is not unlawful or the same
does run counters with existing public policy, complainant herein should and
must supposedly bound by it.

In fact, the Labor Code sanctioned such provision with regards to any
training Contract entered by any prospect employee to her/his prospect
employer.

As can be gleaned in the Employee Agreement for Training which


complainant entered with respondent, specifically under the provision of
Termination of Training/Employment1 and Miscellaneous2, it
categorically provides:

5.1. Notwithstanding anything contain herein to


the contrary, this Agreement shall be immediately
terminable by the company for cause ......

5.3. Non-completion of the Training


Period and

11. Miscellaneous
..........FAIL: Failed Trainee will be automatically
terminated from the company. Training days will
not be paid

The non-payment of the actual training days is within the provisions


of the contract. The terms of an agreement is very clear, the non-completion
of the training is considered as FAILED, hence, the actual training days will
not be paid.

1
Paragraph 5 of the Employee Agreement for Training Period.
2
Paragraph 7 of the Employee Agreement for Training Period.
12. When the complainant signed the training contract it was
explained and clear to her that she is not entitled to any payment if she failed
to finish the twenty (20) training days. If the complainant was not amenable
to the stipulations in the contract, she 3 can simply walk away and did not
sign the said contract instead.
[4]
13. In Heirs of San Andres v. Rodriguez , the Supreme Court
ruled that:

Time and again, we have stressed the rule that a


contract is the law between the parties, and courts have no
choice but to enforce such contract so long as it is not
contrary to law, morals, good customs or public policy.
Otherwise, courts would be interfering with the freedom of
contract of the parties. Simply put, courts cannot stipulate for
the parties or amend the latter's agreement, for to do so would
be to alter the real intention of the contracting parties when
the contrary function of courts is to give force and effect to
the intention of the parties.

The non-performance of an
obligation in an agreement
constitute a breach of contract and
the person liable for it cannot
unjustly enrich herself.

14. Article 1159 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that:

Obligations arising from contracts have the


force of law between the contracting parties and
should be complied with in good faith.

15. Contract of employment like any other contracts should be


complied with in good faith. In the absence of any stipulation, complainant
cannot be deemed to have the contractual right to pre-terminate the contract
unilaterally. The act of the complainant herself constitute an implied
termination of contract. Hence, she cannot claim whatever from the
respondent because in the first place she is in bad faith and come to this
Honorable NLRC not in clean hands.

16. In Olacao vs NLRC5, the principle against unjust enrichment


3
Refer to the Complainant
4
388 Phil. 571, 586 (2000).
5
G.R. No.81390, 29 August 1989, 177 SCRA 38,45
must be held applicable to labor cases as well. The court would like to avoid
the rampant whimsical and baseless filing of cases against employers inorder
to collect a sum of money from them.

17. The complainant knew that when the employer approached her to
change training schedule it is not a termination nor suspension of the
training but an effort to give her a favorable schedule. The filing of the
complaint in the first place shows the intention of the complainant that she is
no longer interested to return to work . By her own acts and unilateral
severance of the contract, that causes her not to avail the training fees agreed
upon;

18. The provisions for the non-payment of unfinished training


contract is a valid protection parameter used by the employers to avoid
call-center hopper scheme.6 The order for any payment would allow the
complainant to unjustly enrich herself at the expense of respondent.

19. The complainant herself committed a breach of contract by not


reporting to the respondent after the incident and by filing a malicious
complaint before the Honorable NLRC. When the incident was happened
there was no verbal dismissal nor suspension. The complainant upon fixing
her signature to the training contract was aware that she is not entitled to
training fees once she failed to finish the training period or failure to pass the
performance evaluation.

20. In Multinational Village Homeowners Association vs ARA


Security & Surveillance Agency7, the rule is that the one who alleges a fact
has the burden of proving it. Thus, the complainant was burdened to prove
their allegations that the respondents terminate her from the training.

21. There was no evidence exists to prove that the contract was
allegedly terminated or that other actions were taken against her by the
employer.

22. It is an often rule that in labor cases, as in other administrative


and quasi-judicial proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary is
substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.8 The
burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an
issue.9
6
Call center hopper where the agent or trainee work from one call center to another for short periods of time. They grab
the opportunity of being trained with corresponding training fess but they do not have the intention to stay in the
company.
7
G.R. No. 154852, October 21, 2004
8
Antiquina v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, G.R. No. 168922, April 13, 2011, 648 SCRA 659, 675,
citing National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries-Manila Pavillion Hotel
Chapter v. NLRC, G.R. No. 179402, September 30, 2008, 567 SCRA 291, 305.
9
Ibid.
23. It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be
clear, positive and convincing. The rule that the employer bears the burden
of proof in termination of contract finds no application here because the
respondents deny having terminated nor suspended the complainant.

Management prerogative
is an inherent right of the
employer.

24. In Rural Bank of Catilan, Inc. Vs Julve10, the Court summarize


the general jurisprudential guidelines affecting the right of the employer to
regulate employment:

Under the doctrine of management


prerogative, every employer has the inherent
right to regulate, according to his own discretion
and judgment, all aspects of employment
including hiring. The only limitations to the
exercise of this prerogative are those imposed by
labor laws and the principles of equity and
substantial justice

25. The respondents were compassionate by offering to the


complainant that they will look for a morning shift so as to avoid another
untoward incident that may worsen the health conditions of the
complainant.

26. The change of schedule suggested by the respondent, although


not a part of the obligations of the respondents and not of their
responsibility, they were accommodating to offer another schedule so that
the complainant
will be able to finish the training and can be a future employee of the
company.

27. In Blue Dairy Corporation v NLRC11, the Courts provides


that:

As a privilege inherent in the


employers right to control and manage its
enterprise effectively, its freedom to conduct its
business operations to achieve its purpose
cannot be denied
10
545 Phil 619 (2007)
11
373 Phil. 179, 186 (1999)
28. The complainant instead of expressing her gratitude to the
employer for providing her with compassionate chances to continue the
training with different schedule and instead of initiating a humble dialogue
with the respondents before taking any external legal actions, she directly
and maliciously commenced the instant arbitrary and baseless labor suit
against the respondents, thus, exposing the respondents to mental anguish
and emotional distress.

29. There is no legal and factual basis for the complainant to hold
the respondents liable for the unpaid training days alleged in the causes of
action part of her pro forma complaint;

30. To stress: complainant was not terminated but was in fact given
the opportunity to finish the training period by rescheduling the same in
consideration of her health conditions the respondents in effect initiated
the rescheduling based on its sounds discretion. The training period as
part of the hiring process is always subject to the management
prerogatives.

Hence, the complaint for monetary claims shall be dismissed for lack
of factual and legal basis.

Service by Post

Copies of this pleading cannot be personally served upon other parties


because of distance and time constraints, which therefore render personal
service and filing impractical and inefficient.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that a Decision be


rendered by this Honorable Office

(i.) declaring that;

a.) complainant committed breach of


contract;
b.) complainant is not entitled to any
monetary claims; and

(ii.) Ordering complainant to pay damages by way


of attorneys fee.
Other remedies just and equitable under the premises is likewise
prayed.

Iloilo City, 12 October 2015

MARIANIE C. TANATE
PTR No. 3738164/ 1-14-2015/Iloilo City
IBP Lifetime Mem. No. 0986661/6-24-2015/Iloilo Chapter
Attorneys Roll No. 63444
(Admitted to BAR in 2014; exempted until next compliance period)

MELCHOR C. VILLALOBOS
PTR No. 0349017/01-05-15/Pasig City
IBP No. LRN-0981340/01-05-2015/ Iloilo Chapter
Attorneys Roll No. 61783
(Admitted to BAR in 2013; exempted until next compliance period)

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION FOR NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, Marianie C. Tanate, of legal age, single, Filipino, and with postal


address at 144 Cabarles St., Leon, Iloilo, state:

That I am the attorney-in-fact and the counsel of the above named


respondents in the above captioned pending labor case;

That I caused the preparation thereof;

That I have read its contents; and

That the same are true and correct of my own direct personal
knowledge.

Further, pursuant to Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and


existing Supreme Court circulars, I hereby certify that I have not heretofore
commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; that to
the best of our knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; and
that if we should hereafter learn that other similar or related actions or
proceedings has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, we undertake to report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this court.

Marianie C. Tanate
BIR TIN I.D. No. 298-101-191

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Republic of the Philippines)


City of Iloilo ) S.S.
X-----------------------------X

BEFORE ME this______________________,in Iloilo City personally


appeared the abovenamed attorney/s in fact of the respondents in the
abovecaptioned pending labor case, with their respective Official IDs as
indicated above, who are known to me and to me known to be the same
persons who executed the foregoing verification and anti forum shopping
certification as part of the foregoing position paper in the abovecaptioned
pending labor case, and who attested to me that the same is their free act and
deed.