You are on page 1of 13

APPRENTICESHIP

CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION V. COURT


OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 152894


August 17, 2007
FACTS
 On 15 July 1997, Century Canning Corporation (petitioner) hired
Gloria C. Palad (Palad) as “fish cleaner” at petitioner’s tuna and
sardines factory.

 Palad signed on 17 July 1997 an apprenticeship agreement with


petitioner.

 On 25 July 1997, petitioner submitted its apprenticeship


program for approval to the Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority (TESDA) of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). Only TESDA approved the program.
FACTS

 According to the performance evaluation, Palad incurred


numerous tardiness and absences. As a consequence,
petitioner issued a termination notices to Palad, informing her of
her termination.
 Palad then filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal
dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of pro-
rated 13th month pay.
 Case was appealed before the Court of Appeals and held that
the apprenticeship agreement which Palad signed was not valid
and binding because it was executed more than two months
before the TESDA approved petitioner’s apprenticeship program.
ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT


WAS AN APPRENTICE
RULING
 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 deserves credence. He should
rightly be considered as a regular employee of petitioner as
defined by Article 280 of the Labor Code x x x.
RULING
 Since Palad is not considered an apprentice because the
apprenticeship agreement was enforced before the TESDA’s
approval of petitioner’s apprenticeship program, Palad is
deemed a regular employee performing the job of a “fish
cleaner.”

 Clearly, the job of a “fish cleaner” is necessary in petitioner’s


business as a tuna and sardines factory. Under Article 28021 of
the Labor Code, an employment is deemed 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.
HANDICAPPED WORKERS

 BERNARDO vs. NLRC and FAR EAST BANK


GR No. 122917
July 12, 1999
FACTS
 Far East Bank (Respondent) entered into employment contracts
with deaf-mutes, who were hired as money sorters under
uniform “Employment Contracts for Handicapped Workers.”

 Every 6 months, these workers renewed their employment


contracts. The complainants here complain that they were
regular employees and that they have been illegally dismissed.

 Respondent argued that complainants were not regular


employees, but a special class of workers who were hired
because of political and civic accommodation.
FACTS
 And that the Bank’s corporate philosophy does not allow the
hiring and regularizing handicapped workers unless it was on a
special arrangement basis.

 The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent bank workers.

 NLRC affirmed.
ISSUE

 Whether or not petitioner workers are regular


employees.
RULING
 YES, petitioners are regular employees.

 The fact that after the expiry of their 6 month contract,


respondent bank renewed their contracts shows that these
workers were qualified to perform the responsibilities of their
positions.

 The Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that a


qualified disabled employee should be given the same terms of
employment as a qualified able-bodied person.
RULING
 This being so, petitioners are thus covered by Art. 286 of the
Labor Code which defines regular employment to be that the
employee has been engaged to perform activities usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer.

 The task of counting and sorting bills is necessary to the


business of respondent bank.

 Except for sixteen of them, the petitioners performed these


tasks for more than six months.
RULING
 Therefore, the 27 petitioners should be deemed regular
employees entitled to security of tenure.

 Their services may only be terminated for a just and authorized


cause.

 Because respondents failed to show such cause, these 27


petitioners are deemed illegally dismissed and hence entitled to
backwages and separation pay.