Apelanio vs. Arcanys, Inc.

GR No. 227098, November 14, 2018

FACTS:

On April 10, 2012, Apelanio was hired by Arcanys, Inc. as a Usability/Web Design Expert. He was placed
on a "probationary status" for a period of six months. Due to low evaluation ratings, Arcanys served
Apelanio a letter, informing him that Arcanys would not convert his status into a regular employee.
Apelanio was given his final pay and he signed a Waiver, Release and Quitclaim" in favor of respondents.
Apelanio averred that when this probationary contract was terminated, he was immediately offered a
retainership agreement lasting from October 10, 2012 until October 24, 2012, which involved a similar
scope of work and responsibilities but on a project basis, without security of tenure, with lesser pay, and
without any labor standard benefits. Apelanio was confused with the arrangement, but agreed since he
had a family to support. He believed that he was still undergoing Arcanys’ evaluation. On October 26,
2012, after the lapse of the retainership agreement, Apelanio was offered another retainership
agreement, from October 25, 2012 to November 12, 2012, again with an identical scope of work but at a
reduced daily rate. As a result, Apelanio became suspicious of Arcanys’ motives and consulted with a
lawyer, who informed him that said practice was illegal. He then refused to sign the second retainership
agreement, and questioned why they offered him another retainership agreement if he was deemed
unqualified for the position. Apelanio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Apelanio was illegally dismissed.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court cited the CA’s ruling:

The first agreement, which supposedly re-hired Apelanio for the same position, did not bear his
signature. This fact alone stirs doubt on whether the aforementioned agreement really got finalized. The
NLRC gave full credence to Apelanio's proposition that it is normal for an employee not to sign his copy
and that if Apelanio really wanted to, he could have signed his copy before submitting it as evidence.
Unfortunately, We cannot align our view with that of the NLRC considering that x x x the absence of
Apelanio's signature in the first agreement was also coupled with other indicators that support the
conclusion that such agreement was never really carried out.

The draft of the second agreement, which Apelanio claimed to be another extension of the first,
indicated that such agreement was entered into, and supposed to be signed by the parties on the 10th
of October 2012 (the date supposedly of the first agreement).

The Skype conversation between Apelanio and Arcanys’ representative on October 24, 2012 x x x
showed that they were discussing possible compensation at P18,000.00, which was the remuneration
indicated in the first agreement. If the first agreement got finalized and was already implemented, then
why would the draft of the second one still indicate the 10th October 2012 as the date of execution and
signing of the first agreement?

Although it may be argued that the dates were merely clerical errors or unreplaced entries resulting to
oversight, the Skype conversation between Apelanio and Arcanys’ representative on October 24, 2012,
confirmed the non-conclusion of the first agreement; for it would be illogical for the parties to still
discuss the remuneration indicated in the first agreement if the same had already been implemented,
and, in fact, was about to end on the day that the conversation took place . Furthermore, a review of the
retainership agreements indicates that Apelanio was merely engaged as a consultant, in relation to the
hacking incidents endured by Arcanys. Apelanio merely alleged that he was hired as an employee under
said retainership agreements, but has yet to provide evidence to support such 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. Petition denied.

Doctrine: Although it may be argued that the dates were merely clerical errors or unreplaced entries
resulting in oversight, the Skype conversation between Apelanio and Arcanys’ representative on October
24, 2012, confirmed the non-conclusion of the first agreement. Apelanio merely alleged that he was
hired as an employee under said retainership agreements, but has yet to provide evidence to support
such 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 Apelanio worked beyond his probationary employment.