Today is Friday, August 02, 2019

Custom Search

nc es Judic ia l Issua nc es  Ot her Issua nc es Jurisprudenc e  Int erna t iona l Lega l  AUSL Exc lusive
R

Republic of t he Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 114337 September 29, 1995

NIT TO ENTERPRISES, pet it ioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ROBERTO CAPILI, respondent s.

KAPUNAN, J.:

T his pet it ion for certiorari under Rule 65 of t he Rules of Court seeking to annul t he decision1 rendered by public
respondent Nat ional Labor Relat ions Commission, which reversed t he decision of t he Labor Arbit er.

Briefly, t he fact s of t he case are as follows:

Pet it ioner Nit to Ent erprises, a company engaged in t he sale of glass and aluminum product s, hired Roberto
Capili somet ime in May 1990 as an apprent ice machinist , molder and core maker as evidenced by an
apprent iceship agreement 2 for a period of six (6) mont hs from May 28, 1990 to November 28, 1990 wit h a daily
wage rat e of P66.75 which was 75% of t he applicable minimum wage.

At around 1:00 p.m. of August 2, 1990, Roberto Capili who was handling a piece of glass which he was working on,
accident ally hit and injured t he leg of an office secret ary who was t reat ed at a nearby hospit al.

Lat er t hat same day, aft er office hours, privat e respondent ent ered a workshop wit hin t he office premises which
was not his work st at ion. T here, he operat ed one of t he power press machines wit hout aut horit y and in t he
process injured his left t humb. Pet it ioner spent t he amount of P1,023.04 to cover t he medicat ion of privat e
respondent .

T he following day, Roberto Capili was asked to resign in a let t er3 which reads:

August 2, 1990

Wala siyang t anggap ng utos mula sa superbisor at wala siyang experiensa kung papaano gamit in
and "T OOL" sa pagbuhat ng salamin, sarili niyang desisyon ang paggamit ng tool at may disgrasya at
nadamay pa ang isang sekret arya ng kompanya.

Sa araw ding ito limang (5) minut e ang nakakalipas mula alas-singko ng hapon siya ay pumasok sa
shop na hindi naman sakop ng kanyang t rabaho. Pinakialaman at kinalikot ang makina at
nadisgrasya niya ang kanyang sariling kamay.

Nakagastos ang kompanya ng mga sumusunod:

Emergency and doctor fee P715.00

Medecines (sic) and ot hers 317.04

Bibigyan siya ng kompanya ng Siyam na araw na libreng sahod hanggang mat anggal ang t ahi ng
kanyang kamay.

Tat anggapin niya ang sahod niyang anim na araw, mula ika-30 ng Hulyo at ika-4 ng Agosto, 1990.
 Ang kompanya ang magbabayad ng lahat ng gastos pagt anggal ng t ahi ng kanyang kamay,
pagkat apos ng siyam na araw mula ika-2 ng Agosto.

Sa lahat ng nakasulat sa it aas, hinihingi ng kompanya ang kanyang resignasyon, kasama ng

kanyang comfirmasyon at pag-ayon na ang lahat sa it aas ay totoo.

Naiint indihan ko ang lahat ng nakasulat sa it aas, at ang lahat ng ito ay aking pagkakasala sa hindi
pagsunod sa alint unt unin ng kompanya.

(Sgd.) Roberto Capili

Roberto Capili

On August 3, 1990 privat e respondent execut ed a Quit claim and Release in favor of pet it ioner for and in
considerat ion of t he sum of P1,912.79.4

T hree days aft er, or on August 6, 1990, privat e respondent formally filed before t he NLRC Arbit rat ion Branch,
Nat ional Capit al Region a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of ot her monet ary benefit s.

On October 9, 1991, t he Labor Arbit er rendered his decision finding t he t erminat ion of privat e respondent as
valid and dismissing t he money claim for lack of merit . T he disposit ive port ion of t he ruling reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, t he t erminat ion is valid and for cause, and t he money claims
dismissed for lack of merit .

T he respondent however is ordered to pay t he complainant t he amount of P500.00 as financial

assist ance.

SO ORDERED.5

Labor Arbit er Pat ricio P. Libo-on gave t wo reasons for ruling t hat t he dismissal of Roberto Capilian was valid.
First , privat e respondent who was hired as an apprent ice violat ed t he t erms of t heir agreement when he act ed
wit h gross negligence result ing in t he injury not only to himself but also to his fellow worker. Second, privat e
respondent had shown t hat "he does not have t he proper at t it ude in employment part icularly t he handling of
machines wit hout aut horit y and proper t raining.6

On July 26, 1993, t he Nat ional Labor Relat ions Commission issued an order reversing t he decision of t he Labor
Arbit er, t he disposit ive port ion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, t he appealed decision is hereby set aside. T he respondent is hereby direct ed to

reinst at e complainant to his work last performed wit h backwages comput ed from t he t ime his
wages were wit hheld up to t he t ime he is act ually reinst at ed. T he Arbit er of origin is hereby direct ed
to furt her hear complainant 's money claims and to dispose t hem on t he basis of law and evidence
obt aining.

SO ORDERED.7

T he NLRC declared t hat privat e respondent was a regular employee of pet it ioner by ruling t hus:

As correct ly point ed out by t he complainant , we cannot underst and how an apprent iceship
agreement filed wit h t he Depart ment of Labor only on June 7, 1990 could be validly used by t he
Labor Arbit er as basis to conclude t hat t he complainant was hired by respondent as a plain
"apprent ice" on May 28, 1990. Clearly, t herefore, t he complainant was respondent 's regular
employee under Art icle 280 of t he Labor Code, as early as May 28,1990, who t hus enjoyed t he
securit y of t enure guarant eed in Sect ion 3, Art icle XIII of our 1987 Const it ut ion.

T he complainant being for illegal dismissal (among ot hers) it t hen behooves upon respondent ,
pursuant to Art . 227(b) and as ruled in Edwin Gesulgon vs. NLRC, et al. (G.R. No. 90349, March 5, 1993,
3rd Div., Feliciano, J.) to prove t hat t he dismissal of complainant was for a valid cause. Absent such
proof, we cannot but rule t hat t he complainant was illegally dismissed.8

On January 28, 1994, Labor Arbit er Libo-on called for a conference at which only privat e respondent 's
represent at ive was present .

On April 22, 1994, a Writ of Execut ion was issued, which reads:
 NOW, T HEREFORE, finding merit in [privat e respondent 's] Mot ion for Issuance of t he Writ , you are
hereby commanded to proceed to t he premises of [pet it ioner] Nit to Ent erprises and Jovy Fost er
locat ed at No. l 74 Aranet a Avenue, Port ero, Malabon, Met ro Manila or at any ot her places where
t heir propert ies are locat ed and effect t he reinst at ement of herein [privat e respondent ] to his work
last performed or at t he opt ion of t he respondent by payroll reinst at ement .

You are also to collect t he amount of P122,690.85 represent ing his backwages as called for in t he
disposit ive port ion, and t urn over such amount to t his Office for proper disposit ion.

Pet it ioner filed a mot ion for reconsiderat ion but t he same was denied.

Hence, t he inst ant pet it ion — for certiorari.

T he issues raised before us are t he following:

WHET HER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMIT T ED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRET ION IN
HOLDING T HAT PRIVAT E RESPONDENT WAS NOT AN APPRENT ICE.

II

WHET HER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMIT T ED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRET ION IN
HOLDING T HAT PET IT IONER HAD NOT ADEQUAT ELY PROVEN T HE EXIST ENCE OF A VALID CAUSE IN
T ERMINAT ING T HE SERVICE OF PRIVAT E RESPONDENT.

We find no merit in t he pet it ion.

Pet it ioner assails t he NLRC's finding t hat privat e respondent Roberto Capili cannot plainly be considered an
apprent ice since no apprent iceship program had yet been filed and approved at t he t ime t he agreement was
execut ed.

Pet it ioner furt her insist s t hat t he mere signing of t he apprent iceship agreement already est ablished an
employer-apprent ice relat ionship.

Pet it ioner's argument is erroneous.

T he law is clear on t his mat t er. Art icle 61 of t he Labor Code provides:

Cont ent s of apprent iceship agreement . — Apprent iceship agreement s, including t he main rat es of
apprent ices, shall conform to t he rules issued by t he Minist er of Labor and Employment . T he period
of apprent iceship shall not exceed six mont hs. Apprent iceship agreement s providing for wage
rat es below t he legal minimum wage, which in no case shall st art below 75% per cent of t he
applicable minimum wage, may be ent ered into only in accordance wit h apprent iceship program
duly approved by t he Minist er of Labor and Employment . T he Minist ry shall develop st andard model
programs of apprent iceship. (emphasis supplied)

In t he case at bench, t he apprent iceship agreement bet ween pet it ioner and privat e respondent was execut ed
on May 28, 1990 allegedly employing t he lat t er as an apprent ice in t he t rade of "care maker/molder." On t he
same dat e, an apprent iceship program was prepared by pet it ioner and submit t ed to t he Depart ment of Labor
and Employment . However, t he apprent iceship Agreement was filed only on June 7, 1990. Not wit hst anding t he
absence of approval by t he Depart ment of Labor and Employment , t he apprent iceship agreement was enforced
t he day it was signed.

Based on t he evidence before us, pet it ioner did not comply wit h t he requirement s of t he law. It is mandat ed t hat
apprent iceship agreement s ent ered into by t he employer and apprent ice shall be ent ered only in accordance
wit h t he apprent iceship program duly approved by t he Minist er of Labor and Employment .

Prior approval by t he Depart ment of Labor and Employment of t he proposed apprent iceship program is,
t herefore, a condit ion sine quo non before an apprent iceship agreement can be validly ent ered into.

T he act of filing t he proposed apprent iceship program wit h t he Depart ment of Labor and Employment is a
preliminary st ep towards it s final approval and does not inst ant aneously give rise to an employer-apprent ice
relat ionship.

Art icle 57 of t he Labor Code provides t hat t he St at e aims to "est ablish a nat ional apprent iceship program
t hrough t he part icipat ion of employers, workers and government and non-government agencies" and "to
est ablish apprent iceship st andards for t he prot ect ion of apprent ices." To t ranslat e such object ives into
exist ence, prior approval of t he DOLE to any apprent iceship program has to be secured as a condit ion sine qua
non before any such apprent iceship agreement can be fully enforced. T he role of t he DOLE in apprent iceship
programs and agreement s cannot be debased.

Hence, since t he apprent iceship agreement bet ween pet it ioner and privat e respondent has no force and effect
in t he absence of a valid apprent iceship program duly approved by t he DOLE, privat e respondent 's assert ion t hat
he was hired not as an apprent ice but as a delivery boy ("kargador" or "pahinant e") deserves credence. He should
right ly be considered as a regular employee of pet it ioner as defined by Art icle 280 of t he Labor Code:

Art . 280. Regular and Casual Employment . — The provisions of written agreement to the contrary
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be
regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable
in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where t he employment has been fixed for a
specific project or undert aking t he complet ion or t erminat ion of which has been det ermined at t he
t ime of t he engagement of t he employee or where t he work or services to be performed is
seasonal in nat ure and t he employment is for t he durat ion of t he season.

An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by t he preceding paragraph:

Provided, T hat , any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whet her such service
is cont inuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee wit h respect to t he act ivit y in which
he is employed and his employment shall cont inue while such act ivit y exist s. (Emphasis supplied)

and pursuant to t he const it ut ional mandat e to "prot ect t he right s of workers and promot e t heir welfare." 9

Pet it ioner furt her argues t hat , t here is a valid cause for t he dismissal of privat e respondent .

T here is an abundance of cases wherein t he Court ruled t hat t he t win requirement s of due process,
subst ant ive and procedural, must be complied wit h, before valid dismissal exist s. 10 Wit hout which, t he
dismissal becomes void.

T he t win requirement s of not ice and hearing const it ut e t he essent ial element s of due process. T his simply
means t hat t he employer shall afford t he worker ample opport unit y to be heard and to defend himself wit h t he
assist ance of his represent at ive, if he so desires.

Ample opport unit y connot es every kind of assist ance t hat management must accord t he employee to enable
him to prepare adequat ely for his defense including legal represent at ion. 11

As held in t he case of Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v. NLRC: 12

T he law requires t hat t he employer must furnish t he worker sought to be dismissed wit h t wo (2)
writ t en not ices before t erminat ion of employee can be legally effect ed: (1) not ice which apprises
t he employee of t he part icular act s or omissions for which his dismissal is sought ; and (2) t he
subsequent not ice which informs t he employee of t he employer's decision to dismiss him (Sec. 13,
BP 130; Sec. 2-6 Rule XIV, Book V, Rules and Regulat ions Implement ing t he Labor Code as amended).
Failure to comply wit h t he requirement s t aint s t he dismissal wit h illegalit y. T his procedure is
mandatory, in t he absence of which, any judgment reached by management is void and in exist ent
(T ingson, Jr. vs. NLRC, 185 SCRA 498 [1990]; Nat ional Service Corp. vs. NLRC, 168 SCRA 122; Ruffy vs.
NLRC. 182 SCRA 365 [1990]).

T he fact is privat e respondent filed a case of illegal dismissal wit h t he Labor Arbit er only t hree days aft er he
was made to sign a Quit claim, a clear indicat ion t hat such resignat ion was not volunt ary and deliberat e.

Privat e respondent averred t hat he was act ually employed by pet it ioner as a delivery boy ("kargador" or
"pahinant e").

He furt her assert ed t hat pet it ioner "st rong-armed" him into signing t he aforement ioned resignat ion let t er and
quit claim wit hout explaining to him t he cont ent s t hereof. Pet it ioner made it clear to him t hat anyway, he did not
have a choice. 13

Pet it ioner cannot disguise t he summary dismissal of privat e respondent by orchest rat ing t he lat t er's alleged
resignat ion and subsequent execut ion of a Quit claim and Release. A judicious examinat ion of bot h event s belies
any spont aneit y on privat e respondent 's part .

WHEREFORE, finding no abuse of discret ion commit t ed by public respondent Nat ional Labor Relat ions
Commission, t he appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 12-15.

2 Records, p 12.

3 Id., at 13.

4 Id., at 14.

5 Id., at .47-48.

6 Id., p. 47.

7 Rollo, pp. 14-15.

8 Ibid.

9 Sec. 18, Art . II, T he 1987 Const it ut ion of t he Republic of t he Philippines.

10 Cent ury Text ile Mills, Inc. v. NLRC, 161 SCRA 528 (1988); Gold Cit y-Int egrat ed Port Services,
Inc. v. NLRC, 189 SCRA 811 (1990); Kwikway Engineering Works v. NLRC, 195 SCRA 526 (1991).

11 Abiera v. Nat ional Labor Relat ions Commission, 215 SCRA 476 (1992).

12 210 SCRA 277 (1992).

13 Original Record, p. 39.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation