Human Development - what does it mean?

Objective of the state:

NATIONAL MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Art 43 – Statement of Objective
Objectives:
1. To develop human resources
2. Establish training institutions
3. Formulate plans and programs that will ensure efficient allocation, development and utilization of the nation’s manpower and
promote employment and accelerate economic and social growth

TESDA - what it is and what are the objectives of this?

Middle man power -

what is being encouraged in TESDA?
What are the role of private institutions in this program? - encouraged to participate in providing training centers. kapalit, there are
incentives given to them by the government
Who are the policy making body of Tesda? - Secretary of Dole, DTI, Agri, DILG, and DIrector General of TESDA, DepEd

Art 44 – Definitions
Manpower – Portion of the nation’s population which has actual or potential capability to contribute directly to the production of goods
and services

Entrepreneurship – training for self-employment or assisting individual or small industry within the purview of this title

Art 45-56 (Obsolete and already deleted)

Title II
Chapter I: Apprentices
Art 57 – Statement of objectives
1. Help meet the demand of the economy for trained manpower
2. Establish a national apprenticeship program through the participation of employers workers and government and non-
government agencies
3. Establish apprenticeship standards for the protection of apprentices

Art 58 – Definitions RA 7996

Apprenticeship - practical training on the job supplemented by training within employment with compulsory related theoretical
related theoretical instruction instructions involving a contract between an apprentice and an
employer on an approved apprenticeable occupation

Apprentice - worker who is covered by a written apprenticeship a person undergoing training for an approved apprenticeable
agreement with an individual employer or any of the entities occupation during an established period assured by an
recognized apprenticeship agreement;

Apprenticeable occupation - Any trade form of employment or an occupation officially endorsed by a tripartite body and
occupation which requires more than three months of practical approved for apprenticeship by the Authority
training on the job supplemented by related theoretical instruction

Apprenticeship agreement - employment contract were in the a contract wherein a prospective employer binds himself to train
employer binds himself to train The Apprentice and apprentice this the apprentice who in turn accepts the terms of training for a
in turn accepts the terms of training recognized apprenticeable occupation emphasizing the rights,
duties and responsibilities of each party

Apprenticeship – Arrangement and the period in when an upcoming worker undergoes hands on training more or less formal, to learn the
ropes of a skilled job.

Implementation of Apprenticeship Program

Under D.O. NO. 8, Series of 1989 - BLE is required to undertake the implementation of apprenticeship program.

TESDA implement the apprenticeship program pursuant to section 18 of the TESDA Act of 1994

Requisites for Employment of Apprentices

a) Employer should be engaged in a business that is considered a highly technical industry
b) The job which The Apprentice will work on should be an apprenticeable occupation

Highly technical industry - trade, business, enterprise, industry, or other activity which utilizes the application of advanced technology

Apprenticeable occupation - one which is officially endorsed by a tripartite body and approved for apprenticeship by the TESDA

Art 59 – Qualifications of apprentice

a. 14 years of age (15 na under the IRR and because of RA 7610 as amended by RA 7658 and RA 9231 which prohibits employment
of children under years of 15)
b. Possess vocational aptitude and capacity for appropriate tests
c. possess the ability to comprehend and follow oral and written instructions

Trade and industry associations may recommend additional educational requirements for different occupations

Art 60 – Employment of apprentices: What companies may employ apprentices

Highly technical industries are the only employers that may employ apprentices and only in apprenticeable occupations approved by
the Minister of Labor and employment

Art 61 - Contents of apprenticeship agreements

Agreement must include:
i. Wage rates show confirmed the rules issued by Dolly
ii. Period of apprenticeship which shall not exceed six months
iii. Apprenticeship agreements providing for wage rates below the legal minimum wage ( Shall not start below 75% of the
applicable minimum wage)

Take Note: It may be entered into only in accordance with apprenticeship programs approved by DOLE. Thus, DOLE’s approval is
necessary

Case -

1. Nitto Enterprises vs NLRC

Topic:Apprenticeship need Dole’s Approval

Page: 162

Facts:

● Nitto ENterprise hired Capili as an apprentice machinist on May 1990 for a period of 3 months
● In August 1990. Capili was asked to resign
● Thus, he filed an illegal dismissal case against petitioner
● Labor Arbiter finds the termination valid
● NLRC reverse the same reasoning that there is yet an apprenticeship program filed and approved by DOLE when the
apprenticeship agreement was executed

Issue: WON NLRC is correct

Ruling: Yes

Art 62. - Signing of apprenticeship agreement

Rule: Persons who should sign
i. employer or his agent
ii. By an authorized representative of any of the recognized organizations associations or groups
iii. Apprentice

Note: if the Apprentice is a minor, shall be signed by: parent or guardian or authorized representative of DOLE
Additional requirement – the apprenticeship agreement must be ratified by the appropriate apprenticeship committee and a copy shall
be furnished both the employer and The Apprentice

Art 63 - Venue of apprenticeship programs

Employer may choose from any of the following apprenticeship schemes as the training venue of the apprentices:
i. conducted entirely by and within the sponsoring firm establishment or entity
ii. Entirely within the Department of Labor training center or other public training institutions
iii. Initial training in trade fundamentals - in a training center other institutions with through cequent actual work participation
within the sponsoring firm or entity during the final stage of training

Art 64 - Sponsoring of apprenticeship program

Sponsored by a single employer or firm or by a group or association thereof or by a civic organization

Training of apprenticeship may be undertaken:

a. promises of the sponsoring employer ( individual apprenticeship programs)
b. premises of one or several designated firms ( sponsored by a group or associations of employers or by a civic organization)
c. Department of Labor training center or other public training institutions

Art 65 - investigation of violation of apprenticeship agreement

The appropriate agency of Department of Labor or its authorized representative should investigate any violation of an apprenticeship
agreement violations

Art 66 - appeal to the secretary of Labor

Decisions of the authorized agency of DOLE may be appealed to the secretary of Labor within five days from receipt of the decision.

Secretary of labor’s decision shall be final and executory

Art 67 - Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Prohibition to any person to institute any action for the enforcement of any apprenticeship agreement or damages for breach of any such
agreement unless he has exhausted all available administrative remedies

Art 68 - Aptitude testing of applicants

Additional requirement – Aptitude test

Who shall conduct such test?

1. Employers show have primary responsibility for providing appropriate aptitude test in the selection of apprentices
2. The Department of Labor if the employers do not have adequate facilities for the purpose

Art 69 - Responsibility for supplemental theoretical instruction - only in cases where the program is undertaken in the plant of the company

Who should provide?

1. Employer
2. Appropriate government agency if the employer is not prepared to assume the responsibility

Art 70 - exemptions to voluntary organization of apprenticeship programs

Generally organization of apprenticeship program shall be primarily a voluntary undertaking of employers

Exceptions:
a. National security or particular requirements of economic development so demand ( president of the Philippines may require
compulsory training of apprentices and certain traits of corporations jobs or employment levels where shortage of trained
manpower is deemed critical)
b. If the services of foreign technicians are utilized by private companies in apprenticeable trades, But companies are required to
set up appropriate apprenticeship programs

Note: For letter a, secretary of Labor will determine if shortage of trained manpower is deemed critical you’re also required to promulgate
rules in connection with this

Art 71 - Deductibility of training costs

An additional deduction from taxable income of ½ of the value of Labor training expenses incurred for developing the productivity and
efficiency of apprentices shall be granted to the person or enterprice organizing an apprenticeship program

Requirement:
i. Such program is duly recognized by the Department of Labor
ii. Such deduction shall not exceed 10% of direct labor wage
 iii. The person or enterprise who wishes to avail himself or itself of this incentive should pay his apprenticeship the minimum wage

Art 72 – Apprentice without compensation

General rule - apprentice should be compensated

Exceptions - the hiring of apprentices who’s training on the job is required by the school or training program curriculum or as a requisite for
graduation or board examination

In this case, there is no Employer-employee relationship Between students and schools, colleges or universities but there is written
agreement between them under which the students agreed to work for this school in exchange for the privilege to study free of charge.

Case: is this student injuries third party does the school become liable? – GR No. 75112

Case:

2. Filamer Christian Institute vs. CA, August 17, 1992

Topic -

Page - 166

Facts:

● Funtecha was a working student, being a part-time janitor and a scholar of petitioner Filamer
● Having a student driver's license, Funtecha requested the driver, Allan Masa, and was allowed, to take over the vehicle while the
latter was on his way home one late afternoon.
● Allan Masa turned over the vehicle to Funtecha only after driving down a road, negotiating a sharp dangerous curb, and viewing
that the road was clear.
● Upon swerving, they heard a sound as if something had bumped against the vehicle, but they did not stop to check. Actually, the
Pinoy jeep swerved towards the pedestrian, Potenciano Kapunan who was walking in his lane in the direction against vehicular
traffic, and hit him which ultimately caused his death
● heirs of Kapusanan then filed an action against funtencha and the school as the employer of funtencha
● CA ruled that the petitioner is not liable for the injuries caused by Funtecha on the grounds that the latter was not an authorized
driver for whose acts the petitioner shall be directly and primarily answerable, and that Funtecha was merely a working scholar
who, under Section 14, Rule X, Book III of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code is not considered an employee
of the petitioner. Later, this was amended to rule that Funecha is an employee even if he was assigned to clean the school
premises for only two (2) hours in the morning of each school day.

Issue:won funecha is an employee despite being am mere student scholar

Ruling:yes

n learning how to drive while taking the vehicle home in the direction of Allan's house, Funtecha definitely was not having a joy ride.
Funtecha was not driving for the purpose of his enjoyment or for a "frolic of his own" but ultimately, for the service for which the jeep was
intended by the petitioner school

Therefore, the Court is constrained to conclude that the act of Funtecha in taking over the steering wheel was one done for and in behalf
of his employer for which act the petitioner-school cannot deny any responsibility by arguing that it was done beyond the scope of his
janitorial duties. The clause "within the scope of their assigned tasks" for purposes of raising the presumption of liability of an employer,
includes any act done by an employee, in furtherance of the interests of the employer or for the account of the employer at the time of
the infliction of the injury or damage. (Manuel Casada, 190 Va 906, 59 SE 2d 47 [1950]) Even if somehow, the employee driving the vehicle
derived some benefit from the act, the existence of a presumptive liability of the employer is determined by answering the question of
whether or not the servant was at the time of the accident performing any act in furtherance of his master's business.

Funtecha is an employee of petitioner Filamer. He need not have an official appointment for a driver's position in order that the petitioner
may be held responsible for his grossly negligent act, it being sufficient that the act of driving at the time of the incident was for the benefit
of the petitioner. Hence, the fact that Funtecha was not the school driver or was not acting within the scope of his janitorial duties does not
relieve the petitioner of the burden of rebutting the presumption juris tantum that there was negligence on its part either in the selection of
a servant or employee, or in the supervision over him.

Chapter 2 – Learners

Art 73: Definition

Learners - persons hired as trainees in Semi-skilled and other industrial occupations which are non apprenticeable which may be learned
through practical training on the job in a relatively short period of time which will not exceed 3 months

Art 74 – When learners may be hired

● When no experienced workers are available
● the employment is necessary to prevent curtailment of employment opportunities
● employment does not create unfair competition in terms of labor costs or impair/lower working standards

Importance - necessary to prevent curtailment of employment opportunities. It does not create and fair competition in terms of Labor cost
or impair or lower working standards

Art 75 - Learnership agreement

Learnership agreement shall include:
a. names and addresses of the learners
b. duration of the learnership period (shall not exceed 3 months)
c. Wages/salary rates of the learners ( shall begin at not less than 75% of the applicable minimum wage)
d. Commitment to employee learners if they so desire as regular employees upon completion of the learnership.

Learners who have been allowed or suffered to work during the first two months shall be deemed regular employees if training is
terminated by the employer before the end of the stipulated through no fault of the learner

Learnership agreement shall be subject to inspection with the secretary of Labor

Art 76 - Learners in peace work

Learners employed in peace or incentive- rate jobs during the training period (they shall be paid in full of the work done)

Art 77 - Penalty- any violation shall be subject to the general penalty clause provided for in this code

Learnership Apprenticeship

Similarity both mean training periods for jobs requiring skills that can be acquired through actual work experience

not as fully productive as regular workers

Wages are 25% lower than the applicable legal minimum wage

Difference Trains in a semi- skilled job or in industrial occupations Trains in a highly skilled job or in a job found only in a
highly technical industry

learner ship is allowed even for non-technical jobs Legally allowed only in highly technical industries and
only in apprenticeable occupations approved by DOLE

Training period is 3 months -shorter because the job is because it is a highly skilled job the training period
more easily learning that than in apprenticeship exceeds 3 months (6 months)

Because the job is more easily learnable, the employer No commitment exists
is committed to hire the learner trainee as an employee
after the training period

NOTE: Learner is not an apprentice but an apprentice is conceptually, also a learner.

Chapter III: Handicapped Workers

Art 78: Definition:
Handicapped workers - those whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental division C or injury

Handicap refers to a disadvantage for a given individual, resulting from an impairment or a disability, that limits or prevents the function or
activity, that is considered normal given the age and sex of the individual;

Art 79: when employable

Handicapped workers may be employed:
a. when their employment is necessary to prevent curtailment of employment opportunities
b. When it does not create unfair competition and labor costs or impair or lower working standards

Art 80. Employment agreement

Employment agreement shall include:
a) Names and addresses of the handicapped workers to be employed
b) Rate to be paid to handicap workers (shall not be less than 75% of the applicable legal minimum wage) – This rate is not
available pursuant RA. No. 7277 which provides that the wage rates 100% of the applicable minimum wage
c) Duration of employment.
d) Work to be performed by handicapped workers

Note: this agreement shall be subject to inspection by the secretary of Labor/ duly authorize representative

Art 81. Ability for apprenticeship

Handicap workers may be hired as apprentices or learners if their handicap is not such as to effectively impede the performance of the
job operation in the particular occupation for which they are hired

Magna Carta for disabled persons – RA. No. 7277 ensures equal opportunities for disabled persons and prohibits discrimination against
them

Persons with disability - those suffering from restriction or different abilities as a result of a mental, physical or a sensory impairment of
perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for human being

Impairment - any loss, diminution or aberration of psychological, social logical, or anatomical structure or function

Disability:
i. Physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more psychological, official logical or anatomical functions of
an individual or activities of such individual
ii. a record of such an impairment
iii. being regarded as having such an impairment

Handicap - disadvantage for a given individual resulting from an impairment or a disability that limits or prevents the function or activity
that is considered normal given the age and sex of the individual

Marginalized persons with disability - persons with disability who lack access to rehabilitative services and opportunities to be able to
participate fully in social economic activities and have no means of livelihood and whose incomes fall below the property threshold

PWD's are entitled to equal opportunity for employment

Qualified PWD shall be subject to the same terms and conditions of employment and the same compensation privileges, benefits, French
benefits, incentives or allowance as a qualified able-bodied person

No discrimination against qualified PWD by reason of disability in regard to job application

The following constitute acts of discrimination:

1. Limiting, segregating or classifying a job of the count with this ability in such a manner that adversely affects his work opportunities
2. Using gratification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out a PWD unless such
standards, tests or other selection criteria are shown to be job related for the position in question and are consistent with business
necessity
3. Utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration that:
a. have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability
b. Perpetuate the discrimination of other source subject to common administrative control
4. Providing less compensation, such as salary, which or other forms of remuneration and fringe benefits, to a qualified employee
with disability, by reason of his disability, then the amount to which a non-disabled person performing the same work is entitled
5. favoring a non-disabled employee over a qualified PWD with respect to promotion training opportunities and study and called
scholarship grants holding on the account of the latter's disability
6. Reassigning or transferring an employee with disability to a job or position he cannot pyriform by reason of his disability
7. this may sing or terminating the services of the WD berries and of his disability unless the employer can prove that he impairs the
satisfactory performance of the work involved to the bridges of the business entity yeah provided however that the employer first
sought to provide reasonable accommodation for persons with disability
8. . disability failing to select or administer in the most effective manner employment tests which accurately reflect the skills, attitude,
or other factors of the optic or employee with disability that such test purports to measure, rather than the impaired sensory,
manual or speaking skills of such applicant or employee, if any
9. Excluding BW different membership in labor unions or similar organizations
RA 9442 - SEC. 3. Section 46 of Republic Act No. 7277 is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 46. Penal Clause. -

(a) Any person who violates any provision of this Act shall suffer the following penalties:

(1) For the first violation, a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) but not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or imprisonment of not less than six months but not more than two years, or both at the discretion of the court; and

(2) For any subsequent violation, a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not exceeding Two hundred
thousand pesos (P200,000.00) or imprisonment for not less than two years but not more than six years, or both at the discretion of the court.

(b) Any person who abuses the privileges granted herein shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than six months or a fine of not less
than Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) , but not more than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) , or both, at the discretion of the court.

(c) If the violator is a corporation organization or any similar entity, the officials thereof directly involved shall be liable therefore.

(d) If the violator is an alien or a foreigner, he shall be deported immediately after service of sentence without further deportation
proceedings.

Upon filing of an appropriate complaint, and after notice and hearing the proper authorities may also cause the cancellation or
revocation of the business permit, permit to operate, franchise and other similar privileges granted to any business entity that fails to abide
by the provisions of this Act."

Take note of the incentives given to agencies who employed PWDs

1. Marites Bernardo v. NLRC, GR 122917, July 12, 1999

Topic - The Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that qualified disabled persons be granted the same terms and conditions of
employment as qualified able-bodied employees. Once they have attained the status of regular workers, they should be accorded all the
benefits granted by law, notwithstanding written or verbal contracts to the contrary. This treatments is rooted not merely on charity or
accomodation, but on justice for all.

Page- wala sa book

Facts
● Complainants numbering 43 (p. 176, Records) are deaf-mutes who were hired on various periods from 1988 to 1993 by respondent
Far East Bank and Trust Co. as Money Sorters and Counters through a uniformly worded agreement called "Employment Contract
for Handicapped Workers".
● From 1998 to 1993, their employment[s] were renewed every six months such that by the time this case arose, there were fifty-six
(56) deaf-mutes who were employed by respondent under the said employment agreement.
● Petitioners maintain that they should be considered regular employees, because their task as money sorters and counters was
necessary and desirable to the business of respondent bank. They further allege that their contracts served merely to preclude the
application of Article 280 and to bar them from becoming regular employees.
● Disclaiming that complainants were regular employees, respondent Far East Bank and Trust Company, submits that petitioners
were hired only as "special workers and should not in any way be considered as part of the regular complement of the Bank."
Rather, they were "special" workers under Article 80 of the Labor Code. Private respondent contends that it never solicited the
services of petitioners, whose employment was merely an "accommodation" in response to the requests of government officials
and civic-minded citizens.
● NLRC, affirming the labor arbiter declared that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons was not applicable, "considering the
prevailing circumstances/milieu of the case."

Issue:whether petitioners have become regular employees.

Ruling:
At the outset, let it be known that this Court appreciates the nobility of private respondent's effort to provide employment to physically
impaired individuals and to make them more productive members of society. However, we cannot allow it to elude the legal
consequences of that effort, simply because it now deems their employment irrelevant. The facts, viewed in light of the Labor Code and
the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, indubitably show that the petitioners, except sixteen of them, should be deemed regular
employees. As such, they have acquired legal rights that this Court is duty-bound to protect and uphold, not as a matter of compassion
but as a consequence of law and justice.

The uniform employment contracts of the petitioners stipulated that they shall be trained for a period of one month, after which the
employer shall determine whether or not they should be allowed to finish the 6-month term of the contract. Furthermore, the employer may
terminate the contract at any time for a just and reasonable cause. Unless renewed in writing by the employer, the contract shall
automatically expire at the end of the term

Respondent bank entered into the aforesaid contract with a total of 56 handicapped workers and renewed the contracts of 37 of them. In
fact, two of them worked from 1988 to 1993. Verily, the renewal of the contracts of the handicapped workers and the hiring of others lead
to the conclusion that their tasks were beneficial and necessary to the bank. More important, these facts show that they were qualified to
perform the responsibilities of their positions. In other words, their disability did not render them unqualified or unfit for the tasks assigned to
them.

In this light, the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that a qualified disabled employee should be given the same terms and
conditions of employment as a qualified able-bodied person.

As regular employees, the twenty-seven petitioners are entitled to security of tenure; that is, their services may be terminated only for a just
or authorized cause. Because respondent failed to show such cause, these twenty-seven petitioners are deemed illegally dismissed and
therefore entitled to back wages and reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges.