Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case No. 20 - Tutoy Atlanta Industries vs. Sebolino, G.R. No. 187320 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Earlene Dale
    21 views1 page
    The respondents filed complaints against their employer Atlanta Industries for illegal dismissal and other labor claims. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal of nine respondents to be illegal. The NLRC reversed this for four respondents including Sebolino, finding they were already employees before entering apprenticeship agreements, occupying necessary positions as machine operator and extruder operator. Therefore, dismissing them without just cause, notice or opportunity to be heard was illegal termination under the Labor Code.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    27. Atlanta Industries vs. Sebolino. Tutoy.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The respondents filed complaints against their employer Atlanta Industries for illegal dismissal and other labor claims. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal of nine respondents to be illegal. The NLRC reversed this for four respondents including Sebolino, finding they were already employees before entering apprenticeship agreements, occupying necessary positions as machine operator and extruder operator. Therefore, dismissing them without just cause, notice or opportunity to be heard was illegal termination under the Labor Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    21 views1 page

    Case No. 20 - Tutoy Atlanta Industries vs. Sebolino, G.R. No. 187320 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Earlene Dale
    The respondents filed complaints against their employer Atlanta Industries for illegal dismissal and other labor claims. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal of nine respondents to be illegal. The NLRC reversed this for four respondents including Sebolino, finding they were already employees before entering apprenticeship agreements, occupying necessary positions as machine operator and extruder operator. Therefore, dismissing them without just cause, notice or opportunity to be heard was illegal termination under the Labor Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Retention after Expiration of Apprenticeship Agreement; Effect

    Case No. 20 – Tutoy


    Atlanta Industries vs. Sebolino, G.R. No. 187320
    Facts:
    Complainants filed several complaints for illegal dismissal, regularization, underpayment,
    nonpayment of wages and other money claims, as well as claims for moral and exemplary
    damages and attorney's fees against the petitioners. 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 but were illegally dismissed
    when the apprenticeship agreement expired. 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 as they
    were already employees of the company before they entered into the first and second
    apprenticeship agreements. Also, the positions occupied by the respondents as machine operator,
    extruder operator and scaleman are usually necessary and desirable in the manufacture of plastic
    building materials, the company’s 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: W/N Respondents were illegally dismissed.

    Ruling:
    Yes. Respondents were dismissed without just or authorized cause, without notice, and without
    the opportunity to be heard, their dismissal was illegal under the law.

    Main Point:
    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, scale man
    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.

    You might also like