The Court of Appeals ruled that Gloria Palad's apprenticeship agreement with Century Canning Corporation was invalid because the corporation's apprenticeship program was not approved by TESDA until after Palad was hired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that TESDA approval of an apprenticeship program is required before apprentices can be hired to protect them from possible abuse. It also found that Palad was a regular employee rather than an apprentice and her dismissal was illegal for failing to follow due process.
The Court of Appeals ruled that Gloria Palad's apprenticeship agreement with Century Canning Corporation was invalid because the corporation's apprenticeship program was not approved by TESDA until after Palad was hired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that TESDA approval of an apprenticeship program is required before apprentices can be hired to protect them from possible abuse. It also found that Palad was a regular employee rather than an apprentice and her dismissal was illegal for failing to follow due process.
The Court of Appeals ruled that Gloria Palad's apprenticeship agreement with Century Canning Corporation was invalid because the corporation's apprenticeship program was not approved by TESDA until after Palad was hired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that TESDA approval of an apprenticeship program is required before apprentices can be hired to protect them from possible abuse. It also found that Palad was a regular employee rather than an apprentice and her dismissal was illegal for failing to follow due process.
The Court of Appeals ruled that Gloria Palad's apprenticeship agreement with Century Canning Corporation was invalid because the corporation's apprenticeship program was not approved by TESDA until after Palad was hired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that TESDA approval of an apprenticeship program is required before apprentices can be hired to protect them from possible abuse. It also found that Palad was a regular employee rather than an apprentice and her dismissal was illegal for failing to follow due process.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
Century Canning Corporation vs.
Court of Appeals
Petitioner: Century Canning Corporation
Respondent: Court of Appeals and Gloria C. Palad
TOPIC: Apprentice
FACTS:
Respondent Palad was hired and an apprenticeship agreement was signed as a “fish cleaner” in Century Canning’s tuna and sardines factory where Palad was receiving P138.75 as daily apprentice allowance. Eight days later (July 25, 1997), petitioner Century Canning Corporation submitted an apprenticeship program for approval to the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and was only approved 2 months after submission. When petitioner Century Canning Corporation conducted a performance evaluation, Respondent Palad received a rating of N.I (Needs Improvement) because she only scored 27.75% based on a 100% performance due to her tardiness and absences. As a consequence, a termination notice was issued to respondent Palad. Respondent Palad filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, under-payment of wages, and non- payment of pro-rated 13th month pay. LA: dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. NLRC: affirmed the LA’s ruling. CA: reversed the NLRC ruling and ruled that the apprenticeship agreement signed by petitioner Century and respondent Palad was not valid and binding because it was executed more than two months before the TESDA approved petitioner Century’s apprenticeship program. o Approval by the DOLE of a proposed apprenticeship program is a condition sine qua non before an apprenticeship agreement can be validly entered into.
ISSUE
Whether registration and approval by the TESDA is required before hiring of apprentices. YES.
HELD
RA. 7796 which created the TESDA which transferred the authority over apprenticeship programs from the Bureau of Local Employment of the DOLE to TESDA emphasizes that TESDA’s approval of the apprenticeship program is a pre-requisite for the hiring of apprentice. This is to ensure the protection of apprentices and to avoid possible abuses by prospective employers who may want to take advantage of the lower wage rates for apprentices and circumvent the right of the employees to be secure in their employment. The requisite TESDA approval of the apprenticeship program prior to the hiring of apprentices was further emphasized by the DOLE with the issuance of Department Order No. 68-04, which provides the guidelines in the implementation of the Apprenticeship and Employment Program of the government, specifically states that no enterprise shall be allowed to hire apprentices unless its apprenticeship program is registered and approved by TESDA. In this case, the apprenticeship agreement was entered into between the parties before petitioner filed its apprenticeship program with the TESDA for approval. o Execution of Apprenticeship agreement – July 17, 1997 o Submission to TESDA for approval of Apprenticeship program – July 25, 1997 o Approval of apprenticeship program – Sept. 26, 1997 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 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
As to Illegal Dismissal:
Petitioner Century failed to substantiate its claim that Palad was terminated for valid reasons. In fact, the NLRC found that petitioner failed to prove the authenticity of the performance evaluation which petitioner claims to have conducted on Palad, where Palad received a performance rating of only 27.75%. 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.
NOTES
Definition of Apprentice (jurisprudence)– a worker who is covered by a written apprenticeship
agreement with an employer. Art. 60 of the Labor Code – only employers in the highly technical industries may employ apprentices and only in apprenticeable occupations approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment. Art. 61 of the Labor Code - Apprenticeship agreements providing for wage rates below the legal minimum wage, which in no case shall start below 75 percent of the applicable minimum wage, may be entered into only in accordance with apprenticeship programs duly approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment. Nitto Enterprises vs. National Labor Relations Commission – Where the apprenticeship agreement has no force and effect, the worker hired as apprentice should be considered as a regular employee.
