Nitto Enterprises v. NLRC

G.R. No.
114337 September 29, 1995 FALLO: WHEREFORE, finding no abuse of discretion committed by public respondent
NITTO ENTERPRISES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS National Labor Relations Commission, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED. SO
COMMISSION and ROBERTO CAPILI, respondents. ORDERED.
DOCTRINE: RATIO:
FACTS: Article 61 of the Labor Code provides:

1. Nitto Enterprises is a company engaged in the sale of glass and aluminum products
2. Nitto enterprises hired Roberto Capili sometime in May 1990 evidenced by an Contents of apprenticeship agreement. — Apprenticeship agreements, including the
apprenticeship agreement: main rates of apprentices, shall conform to the rules issued by the Minister of Labor and
a. apprentice machinist, molder and core maker Employment. The period of apprenticeship shall not exceed six months. Apprenticeship
b. for a period of six (6) months from May 28, 1990 to November 28, 1990 agreements providing for wage rates below the legal minimum wage, which in no case
c. with a daily wage rate of P66.75 which was 75% of the applicable shall start below 75% per cent of the applicable minimum wage, may be entered into
minimum wage only in accordance with apprenticeship program duly approved by the Minister of Labor
3. On August 2, 1990, Roberto Capili who was handling a piece of glass which he was and Employment. The Ministry shall develop standard model programs of
working on, accidentally hit and injured the leg of an office secretary who was apprenticeship.
treated at a nearby hospital
4. Later that same day, after office hours, Capili entered a workshop within the office  the apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private respondent was
premises which was not his work station, where he operated one of the power press executed on May 28, 1990 allegedly employing the latter as an apprentice in the
machines without authority and in the process injured his left thumb. trade of "care maker/molder."
5. Nitto Ent. spent the amount of P1,023.04 to cover the medication of Capili  On the same date, an apprenticeship program was prepared by petitioner and
6. Roberto Capili was demanded via a letter to resign submitted to DOLE but the apprenticeship Agreement was filed only on June 7,
7. Capili executed a Quitclaim and Release in favor of Nitto Ent. for and in 1990
consideration of the sum of P1,912.79.40  Notwithstanding the absence of approval by the Department of Labor and
8. Three days after, Capili filed before the NLRC Arbitration Branch, NCR a Employment, the apprenticeship agreement was enforced the day it was signed  in
complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of other monetary benefits this case, MAY 28, 1990
9. LA: termination of Capili is valid and dismissed the money claim for lack of merit  Based on the evidence before us, petitioner did not comply with the requirements of
a. Capili who was hired as an apprentice violated the terms of their the law  It is mandated that apprenticeship agreements entered into by the
agreement when he acted with gross negligence resulting in the injury not employer and apprentice shall be entered only in accordance with the
only to himself but also to his fellow worker apprenticeship program duly approved by the Minister of Labor and
b. Capili had shown that "he does not have the proper attitude in employment Employment
particularly the handling of machines without authority and proper training  Prior approval by the Department of Labor and Employment of the proposed
10. NLRC: reversed LA apprenticeship program is, therefore, a condition sine quo non before an
a. Capili was a regular employee of Nitto Ent. apprenticeship agreement can be validly entered into
b. The apprenticeship agreement cannot be validly used by the LA as basis to  The act of filing the proposed apprenticeship program with the Department of Labor
conclude that the complainant was hired by Nitto Ent. as a plain and Employment is a preliminary step towards its final approval and does not
"apprentice” on May 28, 1990 instantaneously give rise to an employer-apprentice relationship
c. Capili was Nitto Ent.’s regular employee under Article 280 of the Labor
Code, as early as May 28,1990, who thus enjoyed the security of tenure Article 57 of the Labor Code provides that the State aims to "establish a national
guaranteed in Section 3, Article XIII of our 1987 Constitution apprenticeship program through the participation of employers, workers and
11. A writ of execution was issued ordering Nitto Ent. to effect the reinstatement of government and non-government agencies" and "to establish apprenticeship standards
Capili and pay him his backwages for the protection of apprentices."
NITTO ENT.’S CONTENTION: Capili cannot plainly be considered an apprentice since no Prior approval of the DOLE to any apprenticeship program has to be secured as a
apprenticeship program had yet been filed and approved at the time the agreement was condition sine qua non before any such apprenticeship agreement can be fully enforced.
executed and that the mere signing of the apprenticeship agreement already established an The role of the DOLE in apprenticeship programs and agreements cannot be debased.
employer-apprentice relationship
 since the apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private respondent has no
ISSUE: WON NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN HOLDING
force and effect in the absence of a valid apprenticeship program duly approved by
THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS NOT AN APPRENTICE (NO)
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 Nitto Ent. as defined by Article 280 of the
Labor Code
VALID CAUSE FOR TERMINATION OF CAPILI:

 twin requirements of due process, substantive and procedural, must be complied
with, before valid dismissal exists  Without which, the dismissal becomes void
 the employer shall afford the worker ample opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires
 The fact is Capili filed a case of illegal dismissal with the LA only 3 days after he
was made to sign a Quitclaim, a clear indication that such resignation was not
voluntary and deliberate
 Private respondent averred that he was actually employed by petitioner as a delivery
boy ("kargador" or "pahinante")
 He further asserted that Nitto Ent. "strong-armed" him into signing the
aforementioned resignation letter and quitclaim without explaining to him the
contents thereof.
 Nitto Ent. made it clear to him that anyway, he did not have a choice
 Nitto Ent. cannot disguise the summary dismissal of Capili by orchestrating the
latter's alleged resignation and subsequent execution of a Quitclaim and Release
 A judicious examination of both events belies any spontaneity on private
respondent's part

Nitto Enterprises v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nitto Enterprises v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nitto Enterprises v. NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

FACTS: Article 61 of the Labor Code provides:

VALID CAUSE FOR TERMINATION OF CAPILI:

You might also like