Nightshift:call center agent’s blog

When I was interviewed for the very first time for a call center job, I was asked if I would be willing to stay in the company for a year. If I will resign prior to the completion of such period, I would be asked to pay the training bond.

At that time, I was at lost on what the bond was, and what it was for. The interviewer said that it was just a mere agreement, something where I won’t be asked to sign a document. I agreed to her condition, though before I got to the final interview, I quit (more on this on the next post).

In first employer, I was asked to sign that bond thing. It implies that I have to stay there for six months, otherwise, I would have to pay P 15, 000. I left the company a month before that six month period. More than a year after leaving that company, I haven’t received a single letter demanding me to pay the amount.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, ruled that even without a document signed, an employer could demand payment of the training costs through a judicial lexicon “do ut facias.” This “I give that you may do” doctrine means that the employer has the right to ask the employee to do something (e.g. ask him to stay in the company), as the employer invested in the employee’s training.

The SC further said a person may not enrich himself in the expense of the other.

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.

This makes me wonder if call center agents, whose career is as fast paced as one changes his shirt, are required to pay the training bond if there was no prior discussion thereof. Is training bond under the law?