Case Digest (G.R. No. 227098)
Facts:
This is Julius Q. Apelanio v. Arcanys, Inc. and CEO Alan Debonneville, G.R. No. 227098, November 14, 2018, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Julius Q. Apelanio (employee) sued respondents Arcanys, Inc. and Allan (Alan) Debonneville (CEO) after the termination of his probationary employment and subsequent dealings that he alleges converted into an employment relationship.On April 10, 2012, petitioner was hired as a Usability/Web Design Expert on a six‑month probationary status. He was evaluated periodically and received declining ratings, culminating in a 2.77 on his sixth‑month evaluation. On October 3, 2012 respondents informed petitioner they would not convert him to regular status for failing to meet their standards, paid his final pay, and petitioner signed a Waiver, Release and Quitclaim. Petitioner alleges that he was immediately offered a retainership agreement (October 10–24, 2012) with the same scope of work but without security of tenure and with lower pay; after that retainership lapsed he alleges a second retainership (October 25–November 12, 2012) was proposed at an even lower daily rate, which he refused.
Respondents maintained that petitioner was properly terminated at the end of probation for failure to meet the standards made known to him; they further alleged the retainerships were negotiation tools connected to alleged hacking incidents and that the agreements were not concluded as employment contracts. After respondents ceased engaging petitioner, he filed complaints for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, and damages before the Labor Arbiter.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, holding that petitioner’s termination was a valid exercise of management prerogative and noting petitioner’s execution of the quitclaim after receiving final pay. Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On August 30, 2013, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and found petitioner a regular employee illegally dismissed, ordering reinstatement and payment of Php 327,360.00; the NLRC rejected respondents’ claim that the retainerships were unsigned drafts and credited petitioner’s theory of re‑engagement. Respondents’ motion for reconsideration to the NLRC was denied.
Respondents petitioned the Court of Appeals (via Rule 65 certiorari) seeking to annul the NLRC ruling. The Court of Appeals, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras, granted the petition, found that petitioner was validly terminated at the end of probation, stressed the absence of petitioner’s signature on the retainership agreements and other indicia that the agreements were not implem...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in reversing and setting aside the NLRC’s decision that found petitioner a regular employee and ordered reinstatement and ba...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)