REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

SUB-REGIONAL ARBITRATION
BRANCH 6, ILOILO CITY

ROWENA MAY MORANTE,

Complainant,

-versus- NLRC SRAB CASE NO.VI-07-50193-15

For: Illegal Dismissal / Money Claims and
Damages

TELE-SKILLS CALL
CENTER,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
Respondent, by counsel respectfully states:

PREFATORY

Just like any other contract, the employment agreement is the

formal expression of the parties’ rights, duties and obligations. It is the best
evidence of the intention of the parties. For as long it is mutually and
voluntarily entered by parties, it is considered as law that is legally binding
between them.

A contract being mutual in nature cannot be severed at any time.

The violations or severance of any parties in a contract constitute a breach of
contract. That no court, agency or any forum can interfere, enlarge nor alter
any provisions thereof unless the same is contrary to law or unconscionable
in nature.

While the Constitution and the labor laws admittedly protect the
interests of the labor, nonetheless it does not preclude, neither deny nor
destroy any rights available to the employer, especially if it is done for the
furtherance of its business interest or the same being done as a result of its
sound business judgment.

Under the doctrine of management prerogative vis-a-vis to the well

accepted principle of business judgment rule, every employer has the
inherent right to regulate, according to its own discretion and judgment and
the only limitations to the exercise of this prerogative are those imposed by
the Constitution and labor laws.

In the instant case, the actions of the employer 1 lies within the
bounds of the contract between the parties and a valid exercise of
management prerogative. Accordingly, since complainant herein is only a
mere trainee, who violated its standing training agreement, this present
Complaint should fall as there is no employer-employee relationship so to
speak at the first place.

What exist herein is just a mere trainee-trainer relationship.

THE PARTIES

1. Respondent, Tele-Skills Call Center is a sole proprietorship

engages in business process outsourcing (BPO), owned by spouses, Mary
Ann Alegada and Alberto Alegada Jr, being impleaded herein in their
capacity as an Officer thereof, with an office address at 3 rd Floor Arguelles
Building, Arguelles Street, Jaro, Iloilo City.

2. Complainant, Rowena May Morante is a former trainee of

respondent who failed to finish the training agreement.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

3. This is the case of Illegal Dismissal and money claims for the
actual training days undergone by the complainant;

4. The case was set for final mediation last September 10, 2015 but
the parties failed to come up with reasonable Compromised Agreement,
hence, they were directed to file their respective Position Paper.

STATEMENT OF THE RELEVANT ACTS

5. The complainant Rowena May Morante (Morante for brevity)

started its stints as trainee of the respondent on May 8, 2015. The
complainant and the respondent entered into a contract of Employee
Agreement for Training Period which covers twenty (20) working days,
commencing on May 8, 2015 and terminating on June 8, 2015;

A copy of Employee Agreement for Training Period is hereto

attached as Annex “1” and made an integral part hereof.

1
Referring to herein respondent
 6. The terms of “Employee Agreement for Training” under
Termination of Training/Employment and Miscellaneous:

“5.1. Notwithstanding anything contain

herein to the contrary, this Agreement shall be
immediately terminable by the company for
cause” ......
5.3. Non-completion of the Training
Period and

6. Miscellaneous
“..........FAIL: Failed Trainee will be
automatically terminated from the company.
Training days will not be paid”

7. On 2 June 2015, which is the complainant last training day,

untoward incident happened, she vomited in the work place and complained
to the Account Manager Ronah Joy C. Alvarez, that she is not feeling well.
Upon knowing the incident, the respondent approached the complainant and
advised her to take a rest.

The respondent told the complainant that she will look for a daytime
training schedule that will be more favorable to the complainant and to avoid
any untowards incident in relation to the complainant’s health conditions.

8. Considering the fact that the respondent finds it hard time to look
for an appropriate training schedule that would fit the health condition of
complainant, it took several days for it to call, informing the same about her
new training schedule. Unfortunately, when they already find an excellent
time that tailored fit for complainants, she never answered any of its call,
neither received a return call from her.

Hence, respondent assumed that she is no longer interested in the

resumption of her training.

9. Three (3) months after the last training day of the complainant,
the respondent received a call from the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration that
there was a complaint against them and the schedule for the first (1 st)
mandatory mediation was set last August 26, 2015. The respondent where
shocked when the complainant joined the other former employees of the
respondent’s company in filing a labor case against the company.

10. The complainant allegedly was terminated summarily from its

training without any valid grounds and was not paid .The complaint
premised on the presupposition that the complainant is entitled to be paid for
the training period despite her failure to finish the contract period for
training.

ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED

TO THE FOUTEEN (14) DAYS TRAINING PERIOD DESPITE HER
FAILURE TO FINISH THE SAME UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT STATES THAT THE
TRAINING DAYS WILL NOT BE PAID IF THE TRAINEE FAILS TO
FINISH THE TRAINING PERIOD; and

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE SUMMARY TERMINATION IS

A VALID EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE AS
PROVIDED BY LAW AND EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

Contract constitutes the law

between the parties.

11. Settled is the rule that contract is considered valid until and
unless annulled by the competent Court for being contrary to law, moral and
public policy, it is considered as paramount law between parties that will
regulate their dealings.

Since the non-payment of the training fees is not unlawful or the same
does run counters with existing public policy, complainant herein should and
must supposedly bound by it.

In fact, the Labor Code sanctioned such provision with regards to any
training Contract entered by any prospect employee to her/his prospect
employer.

As can be gleaned in the “Employee Agreement for Training” which

complainant entered with respondent, specifically under the provision of
“Termination of Training/Employment”2 and “Miscellaneous”3, it
categorically provides:

“5.1. Notwithstanding anything contain herein to

the contrary, this Agreement shall be immediately
terminable by the company for cause” ......
2
Paragraph 5 of the Employee Agreement for Training Period.
3
Paragraph 7 of the Employee Agreement for Training Period.
 5.3. Non-completion of the Training
Period” and

11. Miscellaneous
“..........FAIL: Failed Trainee will be automatically
terminated from the company. Training days will
not be paid”

The non-payment of the actual training days is within the provisions

of the contract. The terms of an agreement is very clear, the non-completion
of the training is considered as FAILED, hence, the actual training days will
not be paid.

12. When the complainant signed the training contract it was

explained and clear to her that she is not entitled to any payment if she failed
to finish the twenty (20) training days. If the complainant was not amenable
to the stipulations in the contract, she 4 can simply walk away and did not
sign the said contract instead.
[5]
13. In Heirs of San Andres v. Rodriguez , the Supreme Court
ruled that:

“Time and again, we have stressed the rule that a

contract is the law between the parties, and courts have no
choice but to enforce such contract so long as it is not
contrary to law, morals, good customs or public policy.
Otherwise, courts would be interfering with the freedom of
contract of the parties. Simply put, courts cannot stipulate for
the parties or amend the latter's agreement, for to do so would
be to alter the real intention of the contracting parties when
the contrary function of courts is to give force and effect to
the intention of the parties.”

The non-performance of an
obligation in an agreement
constitute a breach of contract and
the person liable for it cannot
unjustly enrich herself.

14. Article 1159 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that:

4
Refer to the Complainant
5
388 Phil. 571, 586 (2000).
 “Obligations arising from contracts have the
force of law between the contracting parties and
should be complied with in good faith.”

15. Contract of employment like any other contracts should be

complied with in good faith. In the absence of any stipulation, complainant
cannot be deemed to have the contractual right to pre-terminate the contract
unilaterally. The act of the complainant herself constitute an implied
termination of contract. Hence, she cannot claim whatever from the
respondent because in the first place she is in bad faith and come to this
Honorable NLRC not in clean hands.

16. In Olacao vs NLRC6, the principle against unjust enrichment

must be held applicable to labor cases as well. The court would like to avoid
the rampant whimsical and baseless filing of cases against employers inorder
to collect a sum of money from them.

17. The complainant knew that when the employer approached her to
change training schedule it is not a termination nor suspension of the
training but an effort to give her a favorable schedule. The filing of the
complaint in the first place shows the intention of the complainant that she is
no longer interested to return to work . By her own acts and unilateral
severance of the contract, that causes her not to avail the training fees agreed
upon;

18. The provisions for the non-payment of unfinished training

contract is a valid protection parameter used by the employers to avoid
“call-center hopper” scheme.7 The order for any payment would allow the
complainant to unjustly enrich herself at the expense of respondent.

19. The complainant herself committed a breach of contract by not

reporting to the respondent after the incident and by filing a malicious
complaint before the Honorable NLRC. When the incident was happened
there was no verbal dismissal nor suspension. The complainant upon fixing
her signature to the training contract was aware that she is not entitled to
training fees once she failed to finish the training period or failure to pass the
performance evaluation.

20. In Multinational Village Homeowners Association vs ARA

Security & Surveillance Agency8, the rule is that the one who alleges a fact
has the burden of proving it. Thus, the complainant was burdened to prove
their allegations that the respondents terminate her from the training.
6
G.R. No.81390, 29 August 1989, 177 SCRA 38,45
7
Call center hopper where the agent or trainee work from one call center to another for short periods of time. They grab
the opportunity of being trained with corresponding training fess but they do not have the intention to stay in the
company.
8
G.R. No. 154852, October 21, 2004
 21. There was no evidence exists to prove that the contract was
allegedly terminated or that other actions were taken against her by the
employer.

22. It is an often rule that in labor cases, as in other administrative

and quasi-judicial proceedings, “the quantum of proof necessary is
substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.”9 The
burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an
issue.10

23. It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be
clear, positive and convincing. The rule that the employer bears the burden
of proof in termination of contract finds no application here because the
respondents deny having terminated nor suspended the complainant.

Management prerogative
is an inherent right of the
employer.

24. In Rural Bank of Catilan, Inc. Vs Julve11, the Court summarize

the general jurisprudential guidelines affecting the right of the employer to
regulate employment:

“ Under the doctrine of management

prerogative, every employer has the inherent
right to regulate, according to his own discretion
and judgment, all aspects of employment
including hiring. The only limitations to the
exercise of this prerogative are those imposed by
labor laws and the principles of equity and
substantial justice”

25. The respondents were compassionate by offering to the

complainant that they will look for a morning shift so as to avoid another
untoward incident that may worsen the health conditions of the
complainant.

26. The change of schedule suggested by the respondent, although

not a part of the obligations of the respondents and not of their
9
Antiquina v. Magsaysay Maritime Corporation, G.R. No. 168922, April 13, 2011, 648 SCRA 659, 675,
citing National Union of Workers in Hotels, Restaurants and Allied Industries-Manila Pavillion Hotel
Chapter v. NLRC, G.R. No. 179402, September 30, 2008, 567 SCRA 291, 305.
10
Ibid.
11
545 Phil 619 (2007)
responsibility, they were accommodating to offer another schedule so that
the complainant
will be able to finish the training and can be a future employee of the
company.

27. In Blue Dairy Corporation v NLRC 12, the Courts provides

that:

“As a privilege inherent in the

employer’s right to control and manage its
enterprise effectively, its freedom to conduct its
business operations to achieve its purpose
cannot be denied ”

28. The complainant instead of expressing her gratitude to the

employer for providing her with compassionate chances to continue the
training with different schedule and instead of initiating a humble dialogue
with the respondents before taking any external legal actions, she directly
and maliciously commenced the instant arbitrary and baseless labor suit
against the respondents, thus, exposing the respondents to mental anguish
and emotional distress.

29. There is no legal and factual basis for the complainant to hold
the respondents liable for the unpaid training days alleged in the causes of
action part of her pro forma complaint;

30. To stress: complainant was not terminated but was in fact given
the opportunity to finish the training period by rescheduling the same in
consideration of her health conditions the respondents in effect initiated
the rescheduling based on its sounds discretion. The training period as
part of the hiring process is always subject to the management
prerogatives.

Hence, the complaint for monetary claims shall be dismissed for lack
of factual and legal basis.

Service by Post

Copies of this pleading cannot be personally served upon other parties

because of distance and time constraints, which therefore render personal
service and filing impractical and inefficient.

RELIEF
12
373 Phil. 179, 186 (1999)
 WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that a Decision be
rendered by this Honorable Office

(i.) declaring that;

a.) complainant committed breach of

contract;
b.) complainant is not entitled to any
monetary claims; and

(ii.) Ordering complainant to pay damages by way

of attorney’s fee.

Other remedies just and equitable under the premises is likewise

prayed.

Iloilo City, 12 October 2015

MARIANIE C. TANATE
PTR No. 3738164/ 1-14-2015/Iloilo City
IBP Lifetime Mem. No. 0986661/6-24-2015/Iloilo Chapter
Attorney’s Roll No. 63444
(Admitted to BAR in 2014; exempted until next compliance period)

MELCHOR C. VILLALOBOS
PTR No. 0349017/01-05-15/Pasig City
IBP No. LRN-0981340/01-05-2015/ Iloilo Chapter
Attorney’s Roll No. 61783
(Admitted to BAR in 2013; exempted until next compliance period)

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION FOR NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, Marianie C. Tanate, of legal age, single, Filipino, and with postal

address at 144 Cabarles St., Leon, Iloilo, state:

That I am the attorney-in-fact and the counsel of the above named

respondents in the above captioned pending labor case;

That I caused the preparation thereof;

That I have read its contents; and

That the same are true and correct of my own direct personal
knowledge.

Further, pursuant to Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and

existing Supreme Court circulars, I hereby certify that I have not heretofore
commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; that to
the best of our knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; and
that if we should hereafter learn that other similar or related actions or
proceedings has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, we undertake to report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this court.

Marianie C. Tanate
BIR TIN I.D. No. 298-101-191

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Republic of the Philippines)

City of Iloilo ) S.S.
X-----------------------------X

BEFORE ME this______________________,in Iloilo City personally

appeared the abovenamed attorney/s in fact of the respondents in the
abovecaptioned pending labor case, with their respective Official IDs as
indicated above, who are known to me and to me known to be the same
persons who executed the foregoing verification and anti forum shopping
certification as part of the foregoing position paper in the abovecaptioned
pending labor case, and who attested to me that the same is their free act and
deed.