G.R. No. 227098. November 14, 2018.

JULIUS Q. APELANIO, vs. ARCANYS, INC. and CEO ALAN DEBONNEVILLE,

respondents.

TOPIC: General Principles

CONCEPT:

FACTS:

1. On April 10, 2012, petitioner Apelanio was hired by respondents Arcanys, Inc. and CEO
Alan Debonneville as a Usability/Web Design Expert.
2. He was placed on “probationary status” for a period of six months.
3. During said period, respondent evaluated his performance as a whole. Although
petitioner was aware that he was undergoing evaluation, he was allegedly not informed
of what the passing grade was or what constituted as “reasonable standards of
satisfactory performance.”
4. During his, 2nd, 4th, and 6th month evaluation he received ratings of 3.06, 2.99, and 2.77
respectively. Respondents then served petitioner a letter informing him that he was not
to be converted into a regular employee because his performance fell short of the
standards set by the corporation.
5. Petitioner was given his final pay and he signed a Waiver, Release and Quitclaim in
favor of respondents.
6. Petitioner averred that when his probationary contract was terminated, he was
immediately offered a retainership agreement which involved a similar scope of work
and responsibilities. Said agreement was on a project basis, without security of tenure,
with lesser pay, and without any labor standard benefits. Petitioner was confused with
the arrangement, but agreed since he had to support his family.
7. After the lapse of the retainership agreement, he was offered another retainership
agreement, again with the same scope of work but with a reduced daily rate.
8. As a result, petitioner became suspicious and consulted with the lawyer, who informed
him that said practice was illegal.
9. He refused to sign the said 2nd agreement. He alleged that he actually qualified for the
position, but that respondents opted to hire him on a project basis to justify lesser pay
and lack of security of tenure and labor standard benefits.
10. Respondents stated that they hired petitioner as a web designer on a probationary
status, and that he signed the termination notice, and executed a waiver in favor of
respondents for further claims. Respondents also alleged that at the time of petitioner’s
probationary employment ended, respondent corp experienced several hacking
incidents that caused several losses and damage. Petitioner allegedly dangled the
information to respondents in exchange for a retainership contract. Petitioner wanted a
higher salary hence the 2nd agreement, however respondents realized that petitioner did
not actually have information about the hacking and just took advantage of the situation.
11. When respondents stopped transacting with the petitioner, he sued them before the
Labor Arbiter for unfair labor practice illegal dismissal, and damages.

Labor Arbiter

- Dismissed petitioner’s illegal dismissal complaint against respondents for lack of merit.
 - The Labor Arbiter held that the case unequivocally shows neither bad faith nor deceit on
part of respondents. Petitioner’s dismissal was an exercise of an employer’s
management prerogative to retain only those it deems fit. In addition, petitioner was
aware that he failed to qualify when he knowingly signed a quitclaim and waiver in favor
of respondents.

NLRC

- Reversed Labor Arbiter’s decision and rejected respondent’s argument that the
retainership agreements were mere drafts that did not even contain petitioner’s
signature.

CA

- Reversed NLRC’s Decision and reinstated the Decision of Labor Arbiter dismissing
petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal.
- CA ruled that petitioner was properly terminated at the end of the probationary period
since he failed to qualify with the standards that were made know to him at the
commencement of the engagement.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in reversing and setting aside
the decision of NLRC. NO.

RULING:

CA correctly pointed out the significance of petitioner’s failure to sign said agreements, viz:

The first agreement, which supposedly re-hired [petitioner] for the same position, did not bear
his signature. This fact alone stirs doubt on whether the aforementioned agreement really got
finalized.

Furthermore, review of the retainership agreements indicates that petitioner was merely
engaged as a consultant, in relation to the hacking incidents. Petitioner merely alleged that he
was hired as an employee under said retainership agreements, but has yet to provide evidence
to support his claim. “It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative
allegations."

Therefore, Article 281 of the Labor Code finds no application in this case, absent any evidence
to prove that petitioner worked beyond his probationary employment.

Thus, the Court of Appeals suitably found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC in
ordering respondents to pay petitioner the total amount of P327,360.00 when he was validly
terminated at the end of his probationary employment. "To sanction such action would not only
be unjust, but oppressive on the part of the employer as emphasized in Pampanga Bus Co., Inc.
v. Pambusco Employer Union, Inc.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED.