Atlanta v.

Sebolino, January 26, 2011

FACTS: Sebolino et al. filed several complaints for illegal dismissal,
regularization, underpayment, nonpayment of wages and other money claims as
well as damages. They alleged that 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. They
claimed that they were illegally dismissed when the apprenticeship agreement
expired.

In defense, Atlanta and Chan argued 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.

The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal to be illegal with respect to nine out
of the twelve complainants. Atlanta appealed the decision to the NLRC which
reversed the illegal dismissal decision with respect to Sebolino and three others.
They moved for reconsideration but this was denied. They then brought the case
up to the Court of Appeals, which held that Sebolino and the three others were
illegally dismiised.

The CA ruled that Sebolino and the three others were already employees of
the company before they entered into the first and second apprenticeship
agreements. For example, Sebolino was employed by Atlanta on March 3, 2004
then he entered into his first apprenticeship agreement with the company on
March 20, 2004 to August 19, 2004. The second apprenticeship agreement was
from May 28, 2004 to October 8, 2004. However, the CA found the
apprenticeship agreements to be void because they were executed in violation of
the law and the rules. Therefore, in the first place, there were no apprenticeship
agreements.

Also, 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 companys main business. Sebolino
and the three others were, therefore, regular employees whose dismissals were
illegal for lack of a just or authorized cause and notice.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that Sebolino and

three others were illegally dismissed.

HELD: The petition is unmeritorious.

 LABOR LAW - Illegal dismissals

The CA committed no reversible error in nullifying the NLRC decision and

in affirming the labor arbiters ruling, as it applies toCostales, Almoite, Sebolino
and Sagun. Specifically, the CA correctly ruled that the four were illegally
dismissed because (1) they were already employees when they were required to
undergo apprenticeship and (2) apprenticeship agreements were invalid.

The following considerations support the CA ruling.

FBased on company operations at the time material to the case, Costales,

Almoite, Sebolino and Sagun were already rendering service to the company as
employees before they were made to undergo apprenticeship. The company itself
recognized the respondents status through relevant operational records in the
case of Costales and Almoite, the CPS monthly report for December 2003 which
the NLRC relied upon and, for Sebolino and Sagun, the production and work
schedule for March 7 to 12, 2005 cited by the CA.

The CA correctly recognized the authenticity of the operational

documents, for the failure of Atlanta to raise a challenge against these documents
before the labor arbiter, the NLRC and the CA itself. The appellate court, thus,
found the said documents sufficientto establish the employment of the
respondents before their engagement as apprentices.

The fact that Sebolino and the three others were already rendering service
to the company when they were made to undergo apprenticeship (as established
by the evidence) renders the apprenticeship agreements irrelevant as far as the
four are concerned. This reality is highlighted by the CA finding that the
respondents occupied positions such as machine operator, scaleman and
extruder operator - tasks that are usually necessary and desirable in Atlantas
usual business or trade as manufacturer of plastic building materials. These tasks
and their nature characterized the four as regular employees under Article 280 of
the Labor Code.Thus, 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. DENIED.

e. Apprentices without compensation – 72, IRR Bk. III, Rule X,

Sec. 14

Article 72. Apprentices without compensation. The Secretary of Labor

and Employment may authorize the hiring of apprentices without compensation
whose training on the job is required by the school or training program curriculum
or as requisite for graduation or board examination.
 WORKING SCHOLAR; LIABILITY OF SCHOOL
In relation to Article 72, the Implementing Rules provide: There is no
employer-employee relationship between students on one hand, and schools,
colleges or universities, on the other, where there is written agreement between
them under which the former agree to work for the latter in exchange for the
privilege to study free of charge, provided the students are given real
opportunities, including such facilities as may be reasonable and necessary to
finish their chosen courses under such agreement.

IRR Bk. III, Rule X, Sec. 14

SECTION 14. Working scholars. — There is no employer-employee
relationship between students on one hand, and schools, colleges or universities
on the other, where there is written agreement between them under which the
former agree to work for the latter in exchange for the privilege to study free of
charge, provided the students are given real opportunities, including such
facilities as may be reasonable and necessary to finish their chosen courses
under such agreement.

Filamer v. IAC, Aug. 17, 1992- In Azucena* p. 138

2. Learners – 73; 4(2) TESDA; 74-76

RA 7796 Sec. 4(2)

● “Learners” refers to persons hired as trainees in semi-skilled and other
industrial occupations which are non-apprenticeable. Learnership programs must
be approved by the Authority

Labor Code
Article 73. Learners defined. Learners are persons hired as trainees in
semi-skilled and other industrial occupations which are non-apprenticeable and
which may be learned through practical training on the job in a relatively short
period of time which shall not exceed three (3) months.

Article 74. When learners may be hired. Learners may be employed when
no experienced workers are available, the employment of learners is necessary
to prevent curtailment of employment opportunities, and the employment does
not create unfair competition in terms of labor costs or impair or lower working
standards.
 Article 75. Learnership agreement. Any employer desiring to employ
learners shall enter into a learnership agreement with them, which agreement
shall include:

The names and addresses of the learners;

The duration of the learnership period, which shall not exceed three (3) months;

The wages or salary rates of the learners which shall begin at not less
than seventy-five percent (75%) of the applicable minimum wage; and

A commitment to employ the learners if they so desire, as regular

employees upon completion of the learnership. All learners who have been
allowed or suffered to work during the first two (2) months shall be deemed
regular employees if training is terminated by the employer before the end of the
stipulated period through no fault of the learners.

The learnership agreement shall be subject to inspection by the Secretary

of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representative.

Article 76. Learners in piecework. Learners employed in piece or

incentive-rate jobs during the training period shall be paid in full for the work
done.