NITTO ENTERPRISES v NLRC
September 29, 1995 | Kapunan
By Ron San Juan
Summary:
Roberto Capili was hired as an apprentice a few days before the petitioner
company formally filed the apprenticeship agreement before the DOLE. The
clumsiness of Capili led to his dismissal. He filed an illegal dismissal case. SC
held that Capili was a regular employee and not an apprentice.
Doctrine:
Prior approval by the Department of Labor and Employment of the proposed
apprenticeship program is a condition sine quo non before an apprenticeship
agreement can be validly entered into.
Facts:
 Petitioner Nitto Enterprises, a company engaged in the sale of glass and
aluminum products, hired Roberto Capili sometime in May 1990 as an
apprentice machinist, molder and core maker as evidenced by an
apprenticeship agreement for a period of 6 months (May 28, 1990 to
November 28, 1990).
 The apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and Capili was executed
on May 28, 1990. On the same date, an apprenticeship program was
prepared by petitioner and submitted to DOLE. However, the
apprenticeship Agreement was filed only on June 7, 1990. Notwithstanding
the absence of approval by the DOLE, the apprenticeship agreement was
enforced the day it was signed.
 Capili who was handling a piece of glass which he was working on,
accidentally hit and injured the leg of an office secretary who was treated
at a nearby hospital. Later that same day, after office hours, Capili entered
a workshop within the office premises which was not his work station.
There, he operated one of the power press machines without authority and
in the process injured his left thumb. Petitioner spent the amount of
P1,023.04 to cover the medication of private respondent.
 The following day, Capili was asked to resign. He executed a a Quitclaim
and Release in favor of petitioner for and in consideration of the sum of
P1,912.79.
 Three days after, Capili formally filed before the NLRC a complaint for
illegal dismissal and payment of other monetary benefits.
 LA: Termination of Capili is valid because (1) Capili, as an apprentice,
violated the terms of their agreement when he acted with gross negligence
resulting in the injury not only to himself but also to his fellow worker; and
(2) he had shown that "he does not have the proper attitude in
employment particularly the handling of machines without authority and
proper training.”
 NLRC: Reversed the LA. Since Capili was hired a few days before the
apprenticeship agreement was filed before DOLE, he was a regular
employee of petitioner.
Issue: Whether or not Capili was an apprentice.
Held: Petition dismissed.
Petitioner did not comply with the requirements of the law. It is mandated that
apprenticeship agreements entered into by the employer and apprentice shall
be entered only in accordance with the apprenticeship program duly approved
by the Minister of Labor and Employment.
Prior approval by the Department of Labor and Employment of the
proposed apprenticeship program is, therefore, a condition sine quo non
before an apprenticeship agreement can be validly entered into.
The act of filing the proposed apprenticeship program with the Department of
Labor and Employment is a preliminary step towards its final approval and
does not instantaneously give rise to an employer-apprentice relationship. The
role of the DOLE in apprenticeship programs and agreements cannot be
debased.
Hence, since the apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private
respondent has no force and effect in the absence of a valid apprenticeship
program duly approved by the DOLE, private respondent's assertion that he
was hired not as an apprentice but as a delivery boy ("kargador" or
"pahinante") deserves credence. He should rightly be considered as a regular
employee of petitioner as defined by Article 280 of the Labor Code.
There is an abundance of cases wherein the Court ruled that the twin
requirements of due process, substantive and procedural, must be complied
with, before valid dismissal exists. Without which, the dismissal becomes void.
Since there was no compliance with the twin requirements, Capili was illegally
dismissed.