REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
ARBITRATION BRANCH
Quezon City

Rey Thomas
Complainant,

- versus - NLRC NCR CASE NO: 12-642865-17

X Corporation,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

Respondent Corporation, through the undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Office, respectfully submits this position paper, and in support thereof, herby
states that:

PARTIES
1. Rey Thomas, Filipino, of legal age, Complainant in this case, with
the residential address at #3 Anonas Extension, UP Teacher’s Village,
Quezon City, where he may be served with summons and other legal
processes of this Honorable Office.

2. Respondent, X Corporation, is a duly registered domestic

corporation in the Philippines, with an office address at #170
Katipunan Ave., Project 4, Quezon City. Moreover, respondent is being
represented by LVM Law Office with Office Address at #3 Malakas St.,
UP Teacher’s Village, Diliman, Quezon City where he may be served
with summons and other legal processes of this Honorable Office.

1|Page
 PREPARATORY STATEMENT

3. Under Article 58, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code of the Philippines,
an “Apprenticeship occupation” means any trade, form of employment
or occupation which requires more than three (3) months of
practical training on the job supplemented by related
theoretical instruction. Also, under Article 61 of the same Code, it
states that the period of apprenticeship shall not exceed 6
months.

NATURE OF THE CASE

4. This is an action initiated by the Complainant for the case of illegal
dismissal against the respondent company.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. Rey Thomas and X Corporation entered into an apprenticeship
agreement for six (6) months.

6. The company immediately required Rey Thomas to start working as an

apprentice without prior approval of the apprenticeship agreement by
the DOLE.

7. Six (6) months later, Rey Thomas was verbally informed by X

Corporation that his apprenticeship has already over.

8. Rey Tomas wasted no time in filing a complaint for illegal dismissal.

ISSUE
9. WHETHER OR NOT THE DISSMISSAL CASE IS VALID.

ARGUMENT AND DISCUSSIONS

10. Under Article 58, paragraph (a) of the Labor Code, and
apprenticeship means practical training on the job
supplemented by related theoretical instruction.

11. An Apprenticeship Agreement, under Article 58 paragraph (d)

of the same Code is an employment contract wherein the employer
binds himself to train the apprentice and the apprentice in
turn accepts terms of training.

2|Page
 12. Article 61 of the same Code expressly stated that the period of
apprenticeship shall not exceed six (6) months.

13. In the case of Atlanta Industries, Inc. and/or Robert Chan v.

Aprilito R. Sebolino, et al., G.R. No. 187320, January 26, 2011, the
Supreme Court held that with the expiration of the first
agreement and the retention of the employees, the employer, to
all intents and purposes, recognized the completion of their training
and their acquisition of a regular employee status.

14. In the case of Century Canning Corporation v. Court of Appeals and

Gloria C. Palad, G.R. No. 152894, August 17, 2007, it was decided by
the Supreme Court that Reublic Act No. 7796, which created the
TESDA, has transferred the authority over apprenticeship programs
from the Bureau of Local Employment of the DOLE to the TESDA. R.A.
7796 emphasizes TESDA’s approval of the apprenticeship program as a
pre-requisite for the hiring of apprentices.

15. In the case at hand, it was clear from the beginning that the
agreement entered into by X Corporation and Rey Thomas was an
apprenticeship agreement. It was shown that there was no any
employer-employee relationship between the parties because the
length or period of term for apprenticeship was followed by the
employer and therefore, Rey Thomas was not acquired as an
employee as the period of employment does not exceed 6 months as it
was provided by the law. Needless to say, Rey Thomas cannot file an
illegal dismissal case, and other reliefs prayed for because he was not
an employee in the first place since it is not the agreement he signed
for.

16. In the basis of approval needed from the DOLE, it was explained in
one case that the approval of the DOLE for the apprenticeship
agreement was transferred to Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority (TESDA). Therefore, approval of the DOLE of
the agreement between the parties in this case is not needed to
determine either it was an apprenticeship agreement or an
employment agreement.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed to this

Honorable Labor Arbiter, the decision be rendered, to wit:
1. That the complainant was not illegally dismissed and the
respondent corporation is innocent.

2. Ordering the Complainants to pay the herein respondent Actual and

Exemplary damages because they needed to obtain and acquire
services of a lawyer and the reputation of the company was brought
into a humiliation for involving or putting and including their name in a
case before the court.

3|Page
 Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Quezon City, July 21, 2017.

LVM LAW Office

#3 Malakas St., UP Teacher’s Village, Diliman, Quezon, City.
Tel. No.: (02) 291-0742

BY:

Atty. Maureen Elen Medina

Counsel for the Respondent
Roll of Attorney No. 061793
IBP No.: 67156
MCLE Compliance No.: 987654

Copy Furnished:
Atty. Maria Perez
Counsel for the Complainant
J&L Building, Commonwealth Ave., Quezon, City

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, Atty. Candice Querida, legal counsel of X Corporation, of legal age and

Filipino, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state
THAT:
I am the legal counsel of the respondent corporation in the above entitled
case; I have caused the preparation of the foregoing document and I have read the
same and the contents of which are true and correct of my own knowledge and/or on
the basis of authentic documents.
In witness whereof, I hereunto affix my signature on the date and place
mentioned in the jurat.

4|Page
 Atty. Candice Querida
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the July 21, 2017 in Quezon City,
affiant is personally known to the Notary Public.

ATTY. JAHZEL CARPIO

Notary Public
Until December 31, 2017
Commission No. NP-012
Place: Quezon City
Doc. No. 15 Roll of Attorney No.: 16647
Page No. 5 PTR No. 645375 – March 1, 2015 – Quezon City
Book No. V IBP LM No. 0657 – February 5, 2013
Series of 2017 MCLE Compliance No. 756482

5|Page