Magna Carta for Domestic Workers
Republic Act No. 10361: an Act Instituting
Policies for the Protection and Welfare of
Domestic Workers, otherwise known as
Domestic Workers Act or Batas Kasambahay.
signed into law - 18 January 2013, effective 04
June 2013;
Considered as a landmark piece of labor and
social legislation
Recognizes for the first time domestic
workers as similar to those in the formal
sector.
Strengthens respect, protection, and
promotion of the rights and welfare of
domestic workers or kasambahay.
Coverage:
All kasambahay engaged in domestic work,
whether on a live-in or live-out arrangement, such
as, but not limited to, the following:
a. general househelp;
b. yaya;
c. cook;
d. gardener;
e. laundry person;
f. working children or domestic workers 15 years
and above but below 18 years of age; or
g. any person who regularly performs domestic
work in one household on an occupational basis
(live-out arrangement).
Exclusions
a. Service providers;
b. Family drivers;
c. Children under foster family arrangement; and
d. Any other person who performs work
occasionally or sporadically and not on an
occupational and regular basis.
Foster Care
Children under foster family arrangement: Those
living with a family or household of relative/s and
are provided access to education and given an
allowance incidental to education, i.e., baon,
transportation, school projects, and school
activities; provided, that the foster family and
foster care arrangements are in compliance with
the procedures and requirements as prescribed by
Republic Act No. 10165 or Foster Care Act of
2012.
1
Occasional or sporadic work
A janitress doing irregular laundry work for a
household during rest day;
A construction worker doing casual gardening
job for a household; or
A hospital nurse or a student doing baby-sitting
job.
Employable Age, and Conditions
At least 15 years old
conditions for employment of children 15 but
below eighteen 18 years of age
a. Maximum of eight hours a day, 40
hours a week;
b. Not allowed to work between 10 PM
and 6 AM of the following day;
c. No hazardous work; and
d. Allowed access to education and
training.
Engagement or Pre-employment
Employer may hire direct or through a PEA
All expenses borne by employer
Employer and Domestic Worker must execute a
written contract of employment
a. Duties and responsibilities of the domestic
worker;
b. Period of employment;
c. Compensation;
d. Authorized deductions;
e. Hours of work and proportionate additional
payment;
f. Rest days and allowable leaves;
g. Board, lodging and medical attention;
h. Agreements on deployment expenses, if any;
i. Loan agreement;
j. Termination of employment; and
k. Any other lawful condition agreed upon by both
parties.
Rights of Kasambahays
SEC. 5. Standard of Treatment. No abuse or
physical violence or harassment or any act
tending to degrade the dignity of a domestic
worker.
SEC. 6. Board, Lodging and Medical
Attendance. The employer shall provide for the
 basic necessities of the domestic worker; at least
three meals a day; safe & humane sleeping
arrangements; rest and assistance in case of
illnesses and injuries sustained during service
without loss of benefits. Employer shall not
withdraw basic necessities as punishment or
disciplinary action to the domestic worker.
SEC. 7. Guarantee of Privacy. Respect for the
privacy of the domestic worker shall be
guaranteed at all times and shall extend to all
forms of communication and personal effects.
SEC. 8. Access to Outside Communication.
access to outside communication during free
time, except in case of emergency.
SEC. 9. Right to Education and Training. The
employer shall afford the domestic worker the
opportunity to finish basic education and may
allow access to alternative learning systems and,
as far as practicable, higher education or technical
and vocational training. The employer shall
adjust the work schedule of the domestic worker
to allow such access to education or training
without hampering the services required by the
employer.
SEC. 10. Prohibition Against Privileged
Information. All communication and
information pertaining to the employer or
members of the household shall be treated as
privileged and confidential, and shall not be
publicly disclosed by the domestic worker during
and after employment. Such privileged
information shall be inadmissible in evidence
except when the suit involves the employer or any
member of the household in a crime against
persons, property, personal liberty and security,
and chastity.
Mandatory benefits
Monthly minimum wage
Daily rest period
Weekly rest period
5 days annual SIL with pay
13th month pay
SSS, Philhealth and Pag-IBIG coverage
Other rights
Protection for Employers
Right to require pre-employment documents
Recover deployment expenses
Forfeit 15-day unpaid salary for unjustified
departure
Termination of employment on justifiable
grounds
Demand replacement
Privileged communication
Termination of employment, Kasambahay
Verbal or emotional abuse
Inhumane treatment
Commission of crime or offense
Violation of contract and other standards
Disease prejudicial to kasambahay, employer or
member of household
Analogous causes
Termination of employment, Employer
Misconduct or willful disobedience in connection
with work
Gross or habitual neglect or ineptitude in
performance of duties
Fraud or willful breach of trust
Commission of a crime or offense against
employer or member of the family
Violation of terms and conditions or employment
Disease
Analogous causes
RA 10151
Removes prohibition of night work for women
(Article 130) and necessarily, the rules on
exceptions to the prohibition (Art. 131) of
the Labor Code.
Inserts new chapter entitled Employment of
Night Workers

Copy of employment contract The TESDA (43-56, Labor Code)

Certificate of employment Statement of Goals and Objectives

Freedom from wage disposal interference a. To attain international

competitiveness;
Right to form, join or assist labor organizations
b. To meet demands for quality
Religious freedom middle-level manpower;
Termination of employment

2
 c. To disseminate scientific and
technical knowledge base;
d. To recognize and encourage the
complementary roles of public Apprentice, qualifications.
and private institutions; and At least 15 years of age (as amended by Sec. 12,
RA 7610), provided that if below 18 years, he
e. To inculcate desirable values.
shall not be eligible for hazardous occupations.
Middle-Level Manpower
Physically fit for the occupation in which he
refers to those: desires to be trained;

Who have acquired practical skills and Possess vocational aptitude and capacity for the
knowledge through formal or non-formal particular occupation as established through
education and training equivalent to at appropriate tests; and
least a secondary education but
Possess the ability to comprehend and follow oral
preferably a post-secondary education
and written instructions.
with a corresponding degree or diploma;
Total physical fitness is not required of an apprentice-
Skilled workers who have become highly
applicant unless it is essential to the expeditious and
competent in their trade or craft as
effective learning of the occupation. Only physical
attested by industry.
defects which constitute real impediments to effective
Special Workers performance as determined by the plant apprenticeship^
committee may disqualify an applicant. (Sec 13, Rule VI,
Types of Special Workers Book II, Rules implementing the Labor Code)
Apprentice Employment of Apprentices
Learner Employer may employ apprentices when
Handicapped They are classified as highly technical
Apprenticeship - practical training on the job industries; and
supplemented by related theoretical instruction, The task to be performed is an
for a highly skilled or technical occupation for a apprenticeable occupation as determined
period of not less than three months but not more by the Secretary of Labor.
than six months.
Requisites for a Valid Apprenticeship
Apprentice - a worker who is covered by a
written apprenticeship agreement with an Qualified under Article 59;
individual employer or any of the entities
Apprentice earns not less than 75% of the
recognized under this chapter, with an
prescribed minimum salary; (Sec 13, Rule VI,
apprenticeship program duly approved by the
Book II, Rules Implementing the Labor Code)
DOLE.
Apprenticeship agreement duly executed and
Apprenticeable Occupation - any trade, form of
signed;
employment or occupation which requires more
than 3 months of practical training on the job Apprenticeship program must be approved by the
supplemented by related theoretical instruction. Secretary of Labor; otherwise, the apprentice
shall be deemed a regular employee (Century
Apprenticeship Agreement an employment
Canning vs. CA & Gloria Palad GR No. 2007,
contract wherein the employer binds himself to citing Nitto Enterprises v. NLRC, GR No.
train the apprentice and the apprentice in turn
114337, September 29, 1995); and
accepts the terms of training.
Period of apprenticeship shall not exceed six (6)
On-the-job-training practical work experience
months (Sec. 19, Rule VI, Book II, Rules
through actual participation in productive
Implementing the Labor Code).
activities given to or acquired by an apprentice.
Highly Technical Industries a trade, business,
enterprise, industry or other activity which is
engaged in the application of advanced
technology.

3
 Cases
CENTURY CANNING CORP V. CA
The Facts
On 15 July 1997, Century Canning Corporation
(petitioner) hired Gloria C. Palad (Palad) as fish
cleaner at petitioners tuna and sardines factory.
Palad signed on 17 July 1997 an apprenticeship
agreement with petitioner. Palad received an
apprentice allowance of P138.75 daily. 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). On 26 September 1997, the TESDA
approved petitioners apprenticeship program.
According to petitioner, a performance
evaluation was conducted on 15 November 1997,
where petitioner gave Palad a rating of N.I. or
needs improvement since she scored only
27.75% based on a 100% performance indicator.
Furthermore, according to the performance
evaluation, Palad incurred numerous tardiness
and absences. As a consequence, petitioner issued
a termination notice5 dated 22 November 1997 to
Palad, informing her of her termination effective
at the close of business hours of 28 November
1997.
Palad then filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-
payment of pro-rated 13th month pay for the
year 1997.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for
lack of merit but ordered petitioner to pay Palad
her last salary and her pro-rated 13th month pay.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) affirmed with
modification the Labor Arbiters decision,
thus:
MODIFIED in that, in addition, respondents are
ordered to pay complainants backwages for
two (2) months in the amount of P7,176.00
(P138.75 x 26 x 2 mos.). All other dispositions of
the Arbiter as appearing in the dispositive portion
of his decision are AFFIRMED.
Upon denial of Palads motion for
reconsideration, Palad filed a special civil action
for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On 12
November 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered a
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
questioned decision of the NLRC is hereby
SET ASIDE and a new one entered, to wit:
(a) finding the dismissal of petitioner to be illegal;
4
(b) ordering private respondent to pay petitioner
her underpayment in wages;
(c) ordering private respondent to reinstate
petitioner to her former position without loss of
seniority rights and to pay her full backwages
computed from the time compensation was
withheld from her up to the time of her
reinstatement;
(d) ordering private respondent to pay petitioner
attorneys fees equivalent to ten (10%) per cent
of the monetary award herein; and
(e) ordering private respondent to pay the costs of
the suit.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals 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 petitioners apprenticeship
program.
The Court of Appeals also held that petitioner
illegally dismissed Palad. The Court of Appeals
ruled that petitioner failed to show that Palad
was properly apprised of the required
standard of performance. The Court of Appeals
likewise held that Palad was not afforded due
process because petitioner did not comply with
the twin requirements of notice and hearing.
The Issues
Petitioner raises the following issues:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE PRIVATE
RESPONDENT WAS AN APPRENTICE;
and
2. WHETHER THERE WAS A VALID CAUSE
IN TERMINATING THE SERVICE OF
PRIVATE RESPONDENT.
The Ruling of the Court
The petition is without merit.
Registration and Approval by the TESDA of
Apprenticeship Program Required Before
Hiring of Apprentices
In the case at bench, the apprenticeship
agreement between petitioner and private
respondent was executed on May 28, 1990
allegedly employing the latter as an apprentice in
the trade of care maker/molder. On the same
date, an apprenticeship program was prepared by
petitioner and submitted to the Department of
Labor and Employment. However, the
apprenticeship agreement was filed only on June
7, 1990. Notwithstanding the absence of approval
by the Department of Labor and Employment, the
apprenticeship agreement was enforced the day it
was signed.
Prior approval by the Department of Labor and
Employment of the proposed apprenticeship
program is, therefore, a condition sine qua 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.
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 respondents 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 x x x.
Republic Act No. 779615 (RA 7796), which
created the TESDA, has transferred the
authority over apprenticeship programs from
the Bureau of Local Employment of the DOLE
to the TESDA. RA 7796 emphasizes TESDAs
approval of the apprenticeship program as a
pre-requisite for the hiring of apprentices.
Since Palad is not considered an apprentice
because the apprenticeship agreement was
enforced before the TESDAs approval of
petitioners 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 petitioners 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.
Illegal Termination of Palad
To constitute valid dismissal from employment,
two requisites must concur: (1) the dismissal
must be for a just or authorized cause; and (2) the
employee must be afforded an opportunity to be
heard and to defend himself.
When the alleged valid cause for the termination
of employment is not clearly proven, as in this
case, the law considers the matter a case of illegal
dismissal.
Furthermore, Palad was not accorded due
process. Even if petitioner did conduct a
performance evaluation on Palad, petitioner
failed to warn Palad of her alleged poor
performance. In fact, Palad denies any knowledge
of the performance evaluation conducted and of
the result thereof. Petitioner likewise admits that
Palad did not receive the notice of termination
because Palad allegedly stopped reporting for
work. The records are bereft of evidence to
show that petitioner ever gave Palad the
opportunity to explain and defend herself.
Clearly, the two requisites for a valid dismissal
are lacking in this case.
NITTO ENTERPRISES vs. NLRC and
ROBERTO CAPIL
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 2for a
period of six (6) months from May 28, 1990 to
November 28, 1990 with a daily wage rate of
P66.75 which was 75% of the applicable
minimum wage. On August 2, 1990, Roberto
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. Further, 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. The
following day he was asked to resign.
Three days after, , private respondent
formally filed before the NLRC Arbitration
Branch, National Capital Region a complaint
for illegal dismissal and payment of other
monetary benefits. The Labor Arbiter rendered
his decision finding the termination of private
respondent as valid and dismissing the money
claim for lack of merit. On appeal, NLRC issued
an order reversing the decision of the
Labor Arbiter. The NLRC declared that
Capili was a regular employee of Nitto
Enterprises and not an apprentice. Consequently,
Labor Arbiter issued a Writ of Execution
ordering for the reinstatement of Capili and to
collect his back wages. Petitioner, Nitto
Enterprises filed a case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Does the NLRC correctly rule that Capili is a
regular employee and not an apprentice of Nitto
Enterprises?
LAW:
Article 280 of the Labor Code
5
 RULING: Yes.
The apprenticeship agreement between petitioner
and private respondent was
executedon May 28, 1990 allegedly employing t
he latter as an apprentice in the trade of "care
maker/molder. However, the apprenticeship
Agreement was filed only on June 7,
1990.Notwithstanding the absence of approval by
the Department of Labor and Employment, the
apprenticeship agreement was enforced the day it
was signed. 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.
Nitto Enterprises did not comply with the requir
ements of the law. It is mandated that apprentice
shipagreements 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. Thus,
the apprenticeship agreement has no force and
effect; and Capili is considered to be a regular
employee of the company.
OPINION:
I concur with the Courts findings that
since the apprenticeship agreement between
petitioner and private respondent have 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
Apprenticeship Agreement
Content
Full name and address of the contracting
parties;
Date of birth of the apprentice;
Name of trade, occupation or job in
which the apprentice shall be trained and
the dates on which such training will
begin and will proximately end;
Approximate number of hours of on-the-
job training with compulsory theoretical
instructions which the apprentice shall
undergo during his training;
Schedule of the work processes of the
trade/ occupation in which the apprentice
shall be trained & the approximate time
to be spent on the job in each process;
6
Graduated scale of wages to be paid to
the apprentice;
Probationary period of the apprentice
during which either party may summarily
terminate their agreement; and An
Apprenticeship Transfer Clause (Sec. 18,
Rule VI, Book II, Rules Implementing the
Labor Code)
Apprenticeship Program, venue
Within the sponsoring firm, establishment or
entity; OR
Within a DOLE training center or other public
training institutions; OR
Initial training in trade fundamentals in a training
center or other institutions with subsequent actual
work participation within the sponsoring firm or
entity during the final stage of training.
Violations, Apprenticeship Agreements
Investigation of Violation of Apprenticeship
Agreement (Art. 65)
Either party to an agreement may
terminate the same after the probationary
period only for a valid cause.
Action may be initiated upon complaint
of any interested person or upon DOLE'S
own initiative.
Valid Causes to Terminate Apprenticeship
Agreements
By the employer
Habitual absenteeism in on-the-job
training and related theoretical
instructions;
Willful disobedience of company rules or
insubordination to lawful order of a
superior:
Poor physical condition, permanent
disability or prolonged illness which
incapacitates the apprentice from
working;
Theft or malicious destruction of
company property and/or equipment;
Poor efficiency or performance on the
job or in the classroom for a prolonged
period despite warnings duly given to the
apprentice; and
Engaging in violence or other forms of
gross misconduct inside the employer's
premises.
 By the apprentice
Substandard or deleterious working
conditions within the employer's
premises:
Repeated violations by the employer of
the terms of the apprenticeship
agreement;
Cruel or inhumane treatment by the
employer or his subordinates;
Personal problems which in the opinion
of the apprentice shall prevent him from
a satisfactory performance of his job; and
Bad health or continuing illness. (Sec 25,
Rule VI, Book II, Rules Implementing the
Labor Code)
Appeal & EAR
Appeal (Art. 66)
The decision of an authorized agency of
the Department of Labor may be
appealed to the Secretary of Labor,
within 5 days from receipt of the adverse
decision.
The decision of the Secretary of Labor
shall be final and executory.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (Art.
67)
The exhaustion of administrative
remedies is a condition precedent to the
institution of action.
The plant apprenticeship committee shall
have initial responsibility for settling
differences arising out of apprenticeship
agreements (Sec. 32b, Rule VI, Book II,
Rules Implementing the Labor Code).
Organization of Apprenticeship Programs
ART. 70: The organization of apprenticeship
program shall be primarily a voluntary
undertaking of employers, except as provided for
in Article 72.
Exceptions: (Art. 72)
When grave national emergencies, particularly
those involving the security of the state, arise or
particular requirements of economic
development so demand, the Secretary of Labor
and Employment may recommend to the
President of the Philippines the compulsory
training of apprentices required in certain trades,
occupations, jobs, or employment levels where
shortage of trained manpower is deemed critical.
7
Where services of foreign technicians are utilized
by private companies in apprenticeable trades
said companies are required to set up appropriate
apprenticeship programs. (Sec. 41, Rule VI, Book
II, Rules Implementing the Labor Code)
Employer Privileges
An additional deduction from taxable income of
1/2 of the value of labor training expenses
incurred for developing the productivity and
efficiency of apprentices are granted to the person
or enterprise organizing an apprenticeship
program, provided
Apprenticeship program must be duly
recognized by the Department of Labor;
Deduction shall not exceed 10% of direct
labor wage, and
Employer must pay his apprentices the
minimum wage.
Apprentices without compensation
Required by the school;
Required by the training program Curriculum;
A requisite for graduation; or
A requisite for board examination. (Sec. 40, Rule
VI, Book II, Rules Implementing the Labor Code)
Rules on Working Scholar
There is NO employer-employee relationship
where there is agreement between them
The agreement shows that the student/scholar
agrees to work for the college/university in
exchange for the privilege to study free of charge,
provided the students are given real
opportunities, including such facilities as may be
reasonable and necessary to finish their chosen
courses under such agreement
The student/scholar is not considered an
employee. But if he causes injury or damage to a
third person, the school may be held liable under
Art. 2180 of the Civil Code
(Filamer Christian Institute v. IAC, GR No.
75112, August 17, 1992).
FACTS: Daniel Funtecha was a working student
of petitioner Filamer Christiaan Institute (FCI),
where hewas assigned as the school janitor. Allan
Masa was the son of the petitioner schools
president and at the same time was working as the
schools jeepney service driver. On October 20,
1977, after driving the students to their homes,
Masa returned to the school to report and
thereaer to go home with the service jeep so that
he could fetch the students early in the morning.
Masa and Funtecha live in the same place so they
 usually go home together. Masa would let
Funtecha drive since the latter had a student
drivers license. While Funtecha was driving, he
accidentally hit the elderly Potenciano Kapunan
which led to the latters hospitalization. Kapunan
led a criminal case and an independent civil
action based on Article 2180 against Funtecha. In
the independent civil action, the lower court held
that FCI is subsidiarily liable for the tortuous act
of Funtecha and was compelled to pay for
damages based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code,
which provides that employers shall be liable for
the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks. FCI assailed the decision and it
argued that
under Section 14, Rule X, Book III of the IRR of
the Labor Code,
working scholars are excluded from the
employment coverage, hence no employer-
employee relations exist between FCI and
Funtecha; and that the negligent act of Funtecha
was attributable to him alone as it is outside his
assigned task of being a school janitor. The
respondent IAC denied FCIs appeal but the
Supreme Court agreed with the latter. Potenciano
Kapunan then led for a motion for
reconsideration.
ISSUE: Whether or not Filamer should be held
subsidiarily liable.
Held: It is manifest that under the section 14 Rule
X of Book 3 LC, petitioner Filamer cannot be
considered as Funtechas employer. Funtecha
belongs to that special category of students who
render service to the school in exchange for free
tuition Funtecha worked for petitioner for two
hours daily for five days a week. He was assigned
to clean the school passageways from 4:00 a.m.
to 6:00 a.m. with sufficient time to prepare for his
7:30 a.m. classes. As admitted by Agustin Masa
in open court, Funtecha was not included in the
company payroll.
Apprenticeship agreement; validity.
Atlanta Industries, Inc. and/or Robert Chan vs.
Aprilito R. Sebolino, et al., G.R. No. 187320, Jan. 2011.
The apprenticeship agreements did not indicate
the trade or occupation in which the apprentice
would be trained;
neither was the apprenticeship program
approved by the Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority (TESDA).
These were defective as they were executed in
violation of the law and the rules. Moreover, with
the expiration of the first agreement and the
retention of the employees, the employer, to all
intents and purposes, recognized the completion
8
of their training and their acquisition of a regular
employee status.
To foist upon them the second apprenticeship
agreement for a second skill which was not
even mentioned in the agreement itself, is a
violation of the Labor Codes implementing
rules and is an act manifestly unfair to the
employees
Learners
Learners - persons hired as trainees in
a. semiskilled and other industrial occupations
b. which are non-apprenticeable and which may
be learned through practical training on the job
c. in a relatively short period of time which shall
not exceed 3 months.
Learnership Agreement - employment and
training contract entered into between the
employer and the learner.
No requirement for theoretical instruction
When Learners May be Hired
a) No experienced workers are available;
b) The employment of learners being necessary to
prevent curtailment of employment
opportunities; and
c) The employment will neither create unfair
competition in terms of labor costs nor impair
working standards.
d) Employment of minors as learners
e) A minor below fifteen (15) years of age shall
NOT be eligible for employment as a learner.
Those below eighteen (18) years of age may only
be employed in non-hazardous occupations.
Learnership Agreement
It shall include:
The names and addresses of the employer
and the learner;
The occupation to be learned and the
duration of the training period which
shall not exceed three (3) months;
The wage of learner which shall be at
least 75% of the applicable minimum
wage; and
A commitment to employ the learner, if
he so desires, as a regular employee upon
completion of training.
 A learner who has worked during the first two
months shall be deemed a regular employee if
training is terminated by the employer before the
end of the stipulated period through no fault of
the learner
Distinctions (Apprenticeship vs Learnership)
i. Duration
Apprenticeship, Not less than 3 months practical
training on the job but not more than 6 months
while Learnership, Practical training on the job
not to exceed 3 months.
ii. Concept
Apprenticeship, Practical training on the job
supplemented by related theoretical instruction
while Learnership is Hiring of persons as
trainees in semi-skilled and other industrial
occupations which are non-apprenticeable and
which may be learned through practical training
on the job in a relatively short period of time
iii. ERs Commitment to Hire
Apprenticeship, No commitment to hire
However in learnership , with a commitment to
employ the learner as regular employee if he
desires upon completion of learnership.
iv. Effect of Pretermination
In Apprenticeship, Worker is not considered an
employee while in learnership, Learner is
considered regular employee after 2 months of
training and dismissal is without fault of learner
v. Focus of Training
In Apprenticeship, Highly-skilled or technical
industries and in industrial occupation
In Learnership, Semi-skilled/industrial
occupation (non-apprentriceable)
vi. Approval
Apprenticeship, Requires DOLE approval for
validity while in Learnership no prior approval is
needed.
vii. Exhaustion of Administrative in case of
Breach of Contract
In Apprenticeship it is a precondition for the
filing of an action while in learnership it is not
required.
Bar 2016
Differentiate learnership from apprenticeship with respect to
the period of training, type of work, salary and
qualifications. (5%)
Learnership and Apprenticeship are distinguished as
follows:
i. As to the period of training
In learnership, the agreement period shall not
be more than three (3) months; (Article 75
(c), Labor Code, 3.10, TESDA Circular No.
16, Series of 2004) while Apprenticeship, the
agreement shall not be less than four (4)
months and not more than six (6) months;
(Articles 58 [c] in relation to Article 61 and
3.10, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of
2004);
ii. As to the type of work
In learnership, the occupations involves are
semi-skilled and other industrial occupations
which are non-apprenticeable and learnable
occupations must be approved by TESDA
(Articles 73, Labor Code and 3.3, TESDA
Circular No. 16, Series of 2004) while in
apprenticeship, the occupations involves
highly technical industries which means
trade, business, enterprise, industry, or other
activity, which is engaged in the application
of advanced technology and apprenticeable
occupations must be approved by TESDA;
(Articles 60, Labor Code and 3.3, TESDA
Circular No. 16, Series of 2004)
iii. As to salary
In both, the learners and apprentices are
entitled to receive a wage equivalent to 75
percent of the prevailing minimum wage and
other benefits including overtime pay. (see
3.8. TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004;
Articles 61 and 75 [c], Labor Code) Unless
the the elarner is employed iun piece or
incentive rate jobs during the training period
shall be paid in full for the work done.
(Article 76, Labor Code)
iv. As to qualifications
In learnership, the law did not provide such
qualifications. However, reasons or
justifications for hiring are provided by law
(Articles 74, Labor Code) while in
apprenticeship, the qualifications are (a) At
least fifteen (15) years of age; (b) Possess
vocational aptitude and capacity for
appropriate tests; and (c) Possess the ability
to comprehend and follow oral and written
instructions and no justifications or reasons
given by law for hiring; (Articles 59, Labor
Code).