Apelanio vs. Arcanys, Inc.

(2018)

Petitioners: Julius Q. Apelanio

Respondents: Arcanys, Inc. and CEO Alan Debonneville

Ponente: Peralta (Third Division)

Topic: Labor Law

SUMMARY: After failing to meet the standards for regularization, probationary employee Apelanio alleged that
he accepted the offer of Arcanys for retainership for the period October 10-24, 2012. He did not sign the
retainership contract. After the expiration of said period, Apelanio alleged that Arcanys made another offer of
retainership for the period October 25-November 12, 2012. In discussing the terms of the second retainership
offer, Apelanio and Arcanys discussed the same remuneration figure covered by the alleged first retainership
offer. The draft agreement embodying the second offer stated that it was signed by the parties on the same date
as the first agreement.

DOCTRINE: 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. 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.

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 his 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.

ISSUES:
  WoN Apelanio was illegally dismissed
o NO. The SC 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.
 First, 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).
 Second, 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
o 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, absent any evidence to prove that Apelanio worked beyond his
probationary employment.

NOTES: Petition DENIED.