Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

ATLANTA INDUSTRIES, INC. and/or ROBERT CHAN, Petitioners, The following considerations support the CA ruling.

APRILITO R. SEBOLINO, KHIM V. COSTALES, ALVIN V. ALMOITE, and  First. Based on company operations at the time material to the case,
JOSEPH S. SAGUN, Respondents. Costales, Almoite, Sebolino and Sagun were already rendering
service to the company as employees before they were made to
Facts: undergo apprenticeship. The company itself recognized the
respondents’ status through relevant operational records – in the
 Sebolino et al. filed several complaints for illegal dismissal, case of Costales and Almoite, the CPS monthly report for December
regularization, underpayment, nonpayment of wages and other 2003 which the NLRC relied upon and, for Sebolino and Sagun, the
money claims as well as damages. They alleged that they had production and work schedule for March 7 to 12, 2005 . Under the
attained regular status as they were allowed to work with Atlanta for CPS monthly report, Atlanta assigned Costales and Almoite to the
more than six (6) months from the start of a purported apprenticeship first shift (7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) of the Section’s work. The
agreement between them and the company. They claimed that they Production and Work Schedules, in addition to the one noted by the
were illegally dismissed when the apprenticeship agreement expired. CA, showed that Sebolino and Sagun were scheduled on different
 In defense, Atlanta argued that the workers were not entitled to shifts vis-à-vis the production and work of the company’s PE/Spiral
regularization and to their money claims because they were engaged Section.
as apprentices under a government-approved apprenticeship  Second. The Master List of employees is unreliable. The list,
program. The company offered to hire them as regular employees in consisting of several pages, is hardly legible. It requires extreme
effort to sort out the names of the employees listed, as well as the
the event vacancies for regular positions occur in the section of the
other data contained in the list. For this reason alone, the list
plant where they had trained. They also claimed that their names did
deserves little or no consideration. As the respondents also pointed
not appear in the master list of employees prior to their engagement out, the list itself contradicts a lot of Atlanta’s claims and allegations,
as apprentices. thus: it lists only the names of inactive employees; even the names
 The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal to be illegal with respect to of those the NLRC found to have been employed by Atlanta, like
nine out of the twelve complainants. Atlanta appealed the decision Costales and Almoite, and those who even Atlanta claims attained
to the NLRC which reversed the illegal dismissal decision with regular status on January 11, 2006, do not appear in the list when it
respect to Sebolino and three others. They moved for was supposed to account for all employees "as of May 6, 2006."
reconsideration but this was denied. They then brought the case up Despite the "May 6, 2006" cut off date, the list contains no entries of
to the Court of Appeals, which held that Sebolino and the three employees who were hired or who resigned in 2005 and 2006.
others were illegally dismissed. Also, the positions occupied by the  Third. The fact that Costales, Almoite, Sebolino and Sagun were
respondents are machine operator, extruder operator and scaleman already rendering service to the company when they were made to
are usually necessary and desirable in the manufacture of plastic undergo apprenticeship (as established by the evidence) renders the
apprenticeship agreements irrelevant as far as the four are
building materials, the companys main business. Sebolino and the
concerned. This reality is highlighted by the CA finding that the
three others were, therefore, regular employees whose dismissals respondents occupied positions such as machine operator,
were illegal for lack of a just or authorized cause and notice. scaleman and extruder operator - tasks that are usually necessary
and desirable in Atlanta’s usual business or trade as manufacturer
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that Sebolino and three others of plastic building materials.57 These tasks and their nature
were illegally dismissed. characterized the four as regular employees under Article 280 of the
Labor Code. Thus, when they were dismissed without just or
Held. No authorized cause, without notice, and without the opportunity to be
heard, their dismissal was illegal under the law.
 Lastly, the Court only consider the first apprenticeship agreement for
 The CA committed no reversible error in nullifying the NLRC decision the purpose. With the expiration of the first agreement and the
and in affirming the labor arbiters ruling, as it applies to Costales, retention of the employees, Atlanta had, to all intents and purposes,
Almoite, Sebolino and Sagun. CA correctly ruled that the four were recognized the completion of their training and their acquisition of a
illegally dismissed because they were already employees when they regular employee status.
were required to undergo apprenticeship.