Almirante: Contract of adhesion

ON APRIL 10, 2012, petitioner Julius Q. Apelanio was hired by respondents Arcanys, Inc. and chief executive officer Alan Debonneville as a usability/web design expert.

He was placed on a probationary status for six months. During the period, his performance was evaluated and was found to fall short of the stringent requirements and standards set by respondent corporation.

After the termination of his probationary contract, petitioner was immediately made to enter into a retainership agreement lasting from Oct. 10 to Oct. 24, 2012. The same was renewed from Oct. 25 to Nov. 12, 2012.

When respondents stopped transacting with petitioner, he sued them for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and damages.

Does this suit prosper?

Ruling: No.

Jurisprudence is replete with circumstances stating that an employer may unilaterally prepare an employment contract, stating the terms and conditions required of a potential employee, and that a potential employee had only to adhere to it by signing it. Such contract is known as a contract of adhesion, which is allowed by law albeit construed in favor of the employee in case of ambiguity. x x x.

It bears emphasis that in contracts of adhesion, “one party prepares the stipulation in the contract, while the other party merely affixes his signature or his ‘adhesion.’ Besides, the one who adheres to the contract is in reality free to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent.” In this case, however, it cannot be denied that in the retainership agreements provided by petitioner, his signature or “adherence” is notably absent. As a result, said retainership agreements remain ineffectual and cannot be used as evidence against respondents.

Notably, the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out the significance of petitioner’s failure to sign said agreements, viz.:

The first agreement, which supposedly rehired petitioner 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 petitioner’s proposition that it is normal for an employee not to sign his copy and that if petitioner 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 “the absence of petitioner’s signature in the first agreement was also coupled with other indicators that support the conclusion that such agreement was never really carried out.”

Furthermore, a review of the retainership agreements indicates that petitioner was merely engaged as a consultant, in relation to the hacking incidents endured by respondents. Petitioner 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 petitioner worked beyond his probationary employment. (Julius Q. Apelanio vs. Arcanys, Inc. and CEO Alan Debonneville, G.R. No. 227098, November 14, 2018).

Trending

No stories found.

Just in

No stories found.

Branded Content

No stories found.
SunStar Publishing Inc.
www.sunstar.com.ph