call center bond

first of all, God bless your site! i'm sure maraming natutulungan ang site na to...and i hope you'd be able to
help me to.
tungkol po ito sa call center bond. nag-work po ako sa accenture for less than 2 months nung 2007, pero sad
to admit i went AWOL dahil hindi maganda yung schedule na binigay sa akin, i think i only spent 3 days with
them right after training. since then naka-receive na ako ng 2 emails and a demand letter asking me to pay
the bond, otherwise they will take all legal actions against me. halos mahigit kalahati ng kasama ko sa training
umalis din agad after a few weeks matapos yung training, yung isa nga po training pa lang nag-AWOL na.
ang sabi po sa contract (na hindi ko po napag-aralang mabuti because i wasn't given enough time. pinabasa lang
yung contract ng mga 10 minutes then either sign it or not), we'll have to pay the 100k if we leave the company
in less than a year. ang pinagtataka ko lang po, yung isang kasama ko na hindi pa tinapos yung training e
5k lang sinisingil sa kanya. at gaya ng sinasabi ng marami, wag ko na daw po pansinin yang bond dahil nanana-
kot lang yung company, and wala naman yun sa labor code.

what should i do po? honestly wala ako pambayad sa bond. and kahit may pambayad ako i don't think it will
make any sense, dahil terminated na rin naman ako. besides, hindi naman ako trained overseas, so i think
napaka-unfair ng 100k.

pls help!

In the case of VICENTE S. ALMARIO, vs PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. G.R. No. 170928 September 11, 2007 the Supreme Court ordered Vicente Almario to pay PAL the training costs the latter incurred by invoking Article 22 of the Civil Code. Part of the decision reads:

xxx

Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him,


This provision on unjust enrichment recognizes the principle that one may not enrich himself at the expense of another. An authority on Civil Law writes on the subject, viz:

Enrichment of the defendant consists in every patrimonial, physical, or moral advantage, so long as it is appreciable in money. It may consist of some positive pecuniary value incorporated into the patrimony of the defendant, such as: (1) the enjoyment of a thing belonging to the plaintiff; (2) the benefits from service rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant; (3) the acquisition of a right, whether real or personal; (4) the increase of value of property of the defendant; (5) the improvement of a right of the defendant, such as the acquisition of a right of preference; (6) the recognition of the existence of a right in the defendant; and (7) the improvement of the conditions of life of the defendant.

x x x x

The enrichment of the defendant must have a correlative prejudice, disadvantage, or injury to the plaintiff. This prejudice may consist, not only of the loss of property or the deprivation of its enjoyment, but also of non-payment of compensation for a prestation or service rendered to the defendant without intent to donate on the part of the plaintiff, or the failure to acquire something which the latter would have obtained. The injury to the plaintiff, however, need not be the cause of the enrichment of the defendant. It is enough that there be some relation between them, that the enrichment of the defendant would not have been produced had it not been for the fact from which the injury to the plaintiff is derived. (Underscoring supplied)


Admittedly, PAL invested for the training of Almario to enable him to acquire a higher level of skill, proficiency, or technical competence so that he could efficiently discharge the position of A-300 First Officer. Given that, PAL expected to recover the training costs by availing of Almario’s services for at least three years. The expectation of PAL was not fully realized, however, due to Almario’s resignation after only eight months of service following the completion of his training course. He cannot, therefore, refuse to reimburse the costs of training without violating the principle of unjust enrichment.

xxx

Under the principle of unjust enrichment, you are bound to pay your former employer. The latter incurred expenses for your training and on the otherhand you gained knowledge and skills. Your employer trained you on the hope that you will serve them for a considerable period of time. Sad to say, you only worked for 3 days after training.

^prettylaw, i have to disagree. Convergys only has a 20k TRAINING BOND.

unconscionable yung 100k na training bond. If fraublanche could be held liable for the bond then Accenture's business wont be BPO but making sure that employees quit so that they could get the 100k bond.

Also, Accenture will have to prove that they indeed spent 100k for the guys training plus moral or exemplary damages.

If mademanda man yung thread starter, then the courts would reduce the bond to something more realistic or a morally acceptable level.

PS: A-300 First Officer, a pilot job, seems to be an extremely technical and specialized position.

^thank you sir b9904 for the info. I hope accenture does not file a case or if a case is filed then the court will mitigate the award of damages

Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him,

"A" company send JOHN to training worth 250k pesos for several months let say 7 months.

-TRAINING IS COMPLETED.
-JOHN sign a service agreement/contract for 8 years.
-JOhn wish to resign after 5 years ( 3 years more to complete the contract)
-"A" company insist to finish contract or pay the TOTAL amount of TRAining.
-"A" company publicly says that due to the said TRAINING your SALARY is lesser compares to salary abroad.
can we say now that JOHN and "A" company is EVEN (WITHOUT COMPLETING THE CONTRACT). or a good argument to ART 22.
current salary of John 20k while offer abroad an average of 80k.