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
1

Referring to herein respondent

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 3rd 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.

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 complainants 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
respondents 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/Employment2 and Miscellaneous3, it categorically provides:
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

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.
13. In Heirs of San Andres v. Rodriguez [5], 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

Paragraph 5 of the Employee Agreement for Training Period.

Paragraph 7 of the Employee Agreement for Training Period.
4
Refer to the Complainant
3

388 Phil. 571, 586 (2000).

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:
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
6

G.R. No.81390, 29 August 1989, 177 SCRA 38,45

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.
7

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.

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 quasijudicial 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 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.

G.R. No. 154852, October 21, 2004

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
11

Ibid.
545 Phil 619 (2007)

27.

In Blue Dairy Corporation v NLRC12, the Courts provides that:

As a privilege inherent in the employers 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
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
12

373 Phil. 179, 186 (1999)

of attorneys 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
Attorneys 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
Attorneys 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.