ATLANTA INDUSTRIES V.

SEBOLINO

G.R. No. 187320 January 26, 2011

J. Brion

Facts: 12 employees of Atlanta filed several complaints for illegal dismissal and regularization
contending that they had attained regular status after undergoing in an apprenticeship
agreement for more than 6 months but were illegally dismissed when the apprenticeship
agreement expired.

During the pendency of the case, some of the original complainants withdrew their complaints
and others entered into a compromise agreement with Atlanta.

P files Petition for review on certiorari against the ruling of the CA in favor of the respondents.

P presented to the That respondents were not entitled to regularization because they were engaged as
court the following apprentices under a government-approved apprenticeship program. That there was no illegal
proposition dismissal as the respondent workers’ tenure ended with the expiration of the apprenticeship
agreement they entered into.

They presented as evidence the Master List which contained the names of all the persons who
were employed by the petitioner. The names of respondents do not appear in said master list

R counter argued this That the Master List is not legible, it contains only the names of inactive employees. Even
proposition arguing those found by the NLRC to have been employed in the company do not appear in the list.

That the presentation of the Master List revealed the "intention of the herein petitioner[s] to
perpetually hide the fact of [their] prior employment”.

The LA Ruled in favor of complainants (herein respondents).

The NLRC Reversed the decision of LA and dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint

Whereas the CA Reversed the decision of NLRC and found that the respondents were already employees of the
company before they entered into the first and second apprenticeship agreements.

That the positions occupied by the respondents – machine operator, extruder operator and
scaleman – are usually necessary and desirable in the manufacture of plastic building
materials, the company’s main business. Costales, Almoite, Sebolino and Sagun were,
therefore, regular employees whose dismissals were illegal for lack of a just or authorized
cause and notice.

Issue: W/N the respondents were regular employees and was illegally dismissed

The SC Held that: YES. The respondents were regular employees of Atlanta.

The SC J. The fact that Costales, Almoite, Sebolino and Sagun were already rendering service to the
company when they were made to undergo apprenticeship renders the apprenticeship
agreements irrelevant as far as the four are concerned. The respondents occupied positions
such as machine operator, scaleman and extruder operator - tasks that are usually necessary
and desirable in Atlanta’s usual business or trade as manufacturer of plastic building
materials. These tasks and their nature characterized the four as regular employees.
The FF. Laws are the Article 280 of the Labor Code
basis.

It Was Concluded That being regular employees, when they were dismissed without just or authorized cause,
without notice, and without the opportunity to be heard, their dismissal was illegal under the
law.

wherefore The petition is denied, and CA decision is affirmed.