You are on page 1of 13

CENTURY CANNING

CORPORATION V. COURT OF
APPEALS

G.R. No. 152894
August 17, 2007

petitioner submitted its apprenticeship program for approval to the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Century Canning Corporation (petitioner) hired Gloria C. Palad (Palad) as “fish cleaner” at petitioner’s tuna and sardines factory. On 15 July 1997. .  On 25 July 1997. Only TESDA approved the program.  Palad signed on 17 July 1997 an apprenticeship agreement with petitioner.

and non- payment of pro-rated 13th month pay. . informing her of her termination.According to the performance evaluation. 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. Palad incurred numerous tardiness and absences. petitioner issued a termination notices to Palad. Palad then filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal. underpayment of wages. As a consequence.

WHETHER OR NOT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS AN APPRENTICE .

.  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. 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.

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.”  Clearly. Under Article 28021 of the Labor Code. the job of a “fish cleaner” is necessary in petitioner’s business as a tuna and sardines factory. . 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.

1999 . NLRC and FAR EAST BANK GR No. BERNARDO vs. 122917 July 12.

The complainants here complain that they were regular employees and that they have been illegally dismissed. Far East Bank (Respondent) entered into employment contracts with deaf-mutes. . these workers renewed their employment contracts.  Respondent argued that complainants were not regular employees.”  Every 6 months. but a special class of workers who were hired because of political and civic accommodation. who were hired as money sorters under uniform “Employment Contracts for Handicapped Workers.

 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.

. Whether or not petitioner workers are regular employees.

 YES.  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. respondent bank renewed their contracts shows that these workers were qualified to perform the responsibilities of their positions.  The fact that after the expiry of their 6 month contract.  . petitioners are regular employees.

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 petitioners performed these tasks for more than six months. This being so.  The task of counting and sorting bills is necessary to the business of respondent bank.  .   Except for sixteen of them.

the 27 petitioners should be deemed regular employees entitled to security of tenure. Therefore.  Their services may only be terminated for a just and authorized cause. these 27 petitioners are deemed illegally dismissed and hence entitled to backwages and separation pay.  Because respondents failed to show such cause. .