Case: Nitto Enterprises vs NLRC; G.R. No.

114337 September 29, 1995

Topic: Apprentice – Requirement Program Approval

DOCTRINE: Prior approval of the DOLE to any apprenticeship program has to be secured as a
condition sine qua non before any such apprenticeship agreement can be fully enforced.

PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS

NITTO ENTERPRISES NLRC, ROBERTO CAPILI

ACTION SEQUENCE: Complaint for ID -> LA denied -> NLRC reversed LA saying there is illegal
dimissal – SC upheld NLRC.

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 under an apprenticeship
agreement for 6 months with a daily wage of P66.75 which was 75% of the applicable minimum
wage.
 On August 2, Capili who was handling a piece of glass which he was working on, accidentally hit
and injured the leg of an office secretary. Later the same day, after office hours, he entered a
workshop in the office but not his work station. He operated one of the machines without authority
and injured his thumb. The company spent P1,023 to cover the expenses.
 The next day, he was asked to resign and executed Quitclaim and Release. Thereafter, Capili filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims in the NLRC.
 LA – No illegal dismissal
 NLRC – reversed LA. Capili is not an apprentice but a regular employee who enjoyed security of
tenure. It ruled that an apprenticeship agreement subsequently filed with DOLE (only on
June 7) cannot be a valid basis to conclude that he was hired as an apprentice . NLRC
ordered Capili’s reinstatement and P122,690 backwages. Hence, this petition.
 Nitto’s argument – The mere signing of the apprenticeship agreement already established
employer-apprentice relationship; there’s valid cause for dismissal, and signed Quitclaim

ISSUE/S Whether Capili was illegally dismissed

RULING YES. He was illegally dismissed.

Article 61 of the Labor Code states that “xxx Apprenticeship agreements providing for wage rates below
the legal minimum wage, which in no case shall start below 75% per cent of the applicable minimum
wage, may be entered into only in accordance with apprenticeship program duly approved by the
Minister of Labor and Employment.”

Thus, prior approval of the DOLE to any apprenticeship program has to be secured as a condition sine
qua non before any such apprenticeship agreement can be fully enforced.

Here, the apprenticeship agreement was executed on May 28 and such agreement was filed only on
June 7. Without yet the approval of DOLE, the apprenticeship agreement was enforced the day it
was signed. The SC held that 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, Capili’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 (see notes).

While the petitioner argues that there’s valid cause of the dismissal, it failed to comply with the twin
requirements of notice and hearing and failed to give Capili the ample opportunity to be heard and
defend himself.

Here, the fact that Capili filed a case of illegal dismissal after only 3 days is a clear indication that the
resignation was not voluntary. Capili asserts that the company strongarmed him to sign the Quitclaim
since “he did not have a choice anyway.”

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, finding no abuse of discretion committed by public respondent National Labor Relations
Commission, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

NOTES
Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. — The provisions of written agreement to the contrary
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed
to be 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 xx