Atlanta Industries v. Sebolino

A.
Elements of the Relationship

RULING:
1. Atlanta Industries v. Sebolino, The CA committed no reversible error in nullifying the NLRC decision and in
G.R. No. 187320, January 26, 2011 affirming the labor arbiters ruling, as it applies to Costales, Almoite, Sebolino and Sagun.
TOPICS: Illegal Dismissals 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)
FACTS: apprenticeship agreements were invalid.
Sebolino et al. filed several complaints for illegal dismissal, regularization, under-
payment, non-payment of wages and other money claims as well as damages. They alleged The following considerations support the CA ruling.
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 Based on company operations at the time material to the case, Costales, Almoite,
and the company. They claimed that they were illegally dismissed when the apprenticeship Sebolino and Sagun were already rendering service to the company as employees before
agreement expired. 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
In defense, Atlanta and Chan argued that the workers were not entitled to monthly report for December 2003 which the NLRC relied upon and, for Sebolino and
regularization and to their money claims because they were engaged as apprentices Sagun, the production and work schedule for March 7 to 12, 2005 cited by the CA.
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
The CA correctly recognized the authenticity of the operational documents, for 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. 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
The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal to be illegal with respect to nine out of the establish the employment of the respondents before their engagement as apprentices.
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 The fact that Sebolino and the three others were already rendering service to the
reconsideration but this was denied. They then brought the case up to the Court of Appeals, company when they were made to undergo apprenticeship (as established by the evidence)
which held that Sebolino and the three others were illegally dismiised. 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
The CA ruled that Sebolino and the three others were already employees of the machine operator, scaleman and extruder operator - tasks that are usually necessary and
company before they entered into the first and second apprenticeship agreements. For desirable in Atlantas usual business or trade as manufacturer of plastic building materials.
example, Sebolino was employed by Atlanta on March 3, 2004 then he entered into his first These tasks and their nature characterized the four as regular employees under Article 280
apprenticeship agreement with the company on March 20, 2004 to August 19, 2004. The
of the Labor Code.
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 Thus, when they were dismissed without just or authorized cause, without notice,
agreements. and without the opportunity to be heard, their dismissal was illegal under the law.
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:
1) WON the CA erred in ruling that Sebolino and three others were illegally dismissed.
NO.
Estenzo, DCQ Page 1 of 1

Atlanta Industries v. Sebolino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atlanta Industries v. Sebolino

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Atlanta Industries v. Sebolino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.

Elements of the Relationship

Also, the positions occupied by the respondents machine operator, extruder

Estenzo, DCQ Page 1 of 1

You might also like