9/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nitto Enterprises vs. National Labor Relations Commission

*
G.R. No. 114337. September 29, 1995.

NITTO ENTERPRISES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL

LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, and ROBERTO
CAPILI, respondents.

Labor Law; Apprenticeship Agreements; Prior approval by the

Department of Labor and Employment of the proposed
apprenticeship program is a condition sine qua non before an
apprenticeship agreement can be validly entered into.—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
ap-

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

655

VOL. 248, SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 655

Nitto Enterprises vs. National Labor Relations Commission

proval by the Department of Labor and Employment, the

apprenticeship agreement was enforced the day it was signed.
Based on the evidence before us, petitioner did not comply with
the requirements of the law. It is mandated that apprenticeship
agreements entered into by the employer and apprentice shall be
entered only in accordance with the apprenticeship program duly
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165cb1b1963143db78a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
9/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment. 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.
Same; Same; Where the apprenticeship agreement has no force
and effect, the worker hired as apprentice should be considered as
a regular employee.—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 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.
Same; Dismissals; Due Process; The twin requirements of due
process, substantive and procedural, must be complied with before
valid dismissal exists, otherwise the dismissal becomes void.—
There is an abundance of cases wherein the Court ruled that the
twin requirements of due process, substantive and procedural,
must be complied with, before valid dismissal exists. Without
which, the dismissal becomes void. The twin requirements of
notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due
process. This simply means that 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. Ample
opportunity connotes every kind of assistance that management
must accord the employee to enable him to prepare adequately for
his defense including legal representation.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Sinforoso R. Pagunsan for petitioner.
     Ma. Elena Enly B. Nazareta representative of private
respondent.
656

656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nitto Enterprises vs. National Labor Relations Commission

KAPUNAN, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule

1
65 of the Rules
of Court seeking to annul the decision rendered by public

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165cb1b1963143db78a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
9/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

respondent National Labor Relations Commission, which

reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows:
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 2 maker as evidenced by an apprenticeship
agreement for 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.
At around 1:00 p.m. of 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.
Later that same day, after office hours, private
respondent 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. Petitioner spent the amount
of P1,023.04 to cover the medication of private respondent.
The 3following day, Roberto Capili was asked to resign in
a letter which reads:

August 2, 1990     
Wala siyang tanggap ng utos mula sa superbisor at wala siyang
experiensa kung papaano gamitin and “TOOL” sa pagbuhat ng
salamin, sarili niyang desisyon ang paggamit ng tool at may
disgrasya at nadamay pa ang isang sekretarya ng kompanya.
Sa araw ding ito limang (5) minuto ang nakalipas mula alas-
singko ng hapon siya ay pumasok sa shop na hindi naman sakop
ng kanyang trabaho. Pinakialaman at kinalikot ang makina at
nadisgrasya

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 12-15.

2 Records, p. 12.
3 Id., at 13.

657

VOL. 248, SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 657

Nitto Enterprises vs. National Labor Relations Commission

niya ang kanyang sariling kamay.

Nakagastos ang kompanya ng mga sumusunod:

Emergency and doctor fee P715.00

Medecines (sic) and others 317.04
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165cb1b1963143db78a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
9/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

Bibigyan siya ng kompanya ng Siyam na araw na libreng

sahod hanggang matanggal ang tahi ng kanyang kamay.
Tatanggapin niya ang sahod niyang anim na araw, mula ika-
30 ng Hulyo at ika-4 ng Agosto, 1990.
Ang kompanya ang magbabayad ng lahat ng gastos pagtanggal
ng tahi ng kanyang kamay, pagkatapos ng siyam na araw mula
ika-2 ng Agosto.
Sa lahat ng nakasulat sa itaas, hinihingi ng kompanya ang
kanyang resignasyon, kasama ng kanyang confirmasyon at pag-
ayon na ang lahat ng nakasulat sa itaas ay totoo.

*****************

Naiintindihan ko ang lahat ng nakasulat sa itaas, at ang lahat

ng ito ay aking pagkakasala sa hindi pagsunod sa alintuntunin ng
kompanya.
(Sgd.) Roberto Capili
Roberto Capili     

On August 3, 1990 private respondent executed a

Quitclaim and Release in favor of petitioner
4
for and in
consideration of the sum of P1,912.79.
Three days after, or on August 6, 1990, private
respondent formally filed before the NLRC Arbitration
Branch, National Capital Region a complaint for illegal
dismissal and payment of other monetary benefits.
On October 9, 1991, the Labor Arbiter rendered his
decision finding the termination of private respondent as
valid and dismissing the money claim for lack of merit. The
dispositive portion of the ruling reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the termination is valid and

for cause, and the money claims dismissed for lack of merit.

_______________

4 Id., at 14.

658

658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nitto Enterprises vs. National Labor Relations Commission

The respondent however is ordered to pay the complainant the

amount of P500.005 as financial assistance.
SO ORDERED.

Labor Arbiter Patricio P. Libo-on gave two reasons for

ruling that the dismissal of Roberto Capili was valid. First,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165cb1b1963143db78a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
9/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

private respondent who was hired as an apprentice violated

the terms of their agreement when he acted with gross
negligence resulting in the injury not only to himself but
also to his fellow worker. Second, private respondent had
shown that “he does not have the proper attitude in
employment particularly the handling
6
of machines without
authority and proper training.”
On July 26, 1993, the National Labor Relations
Commission issued an order reversing the decision of the
Labor Arbiter, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby set aside. The

respondent is hereby directed to reinstate complainant to his
work last performed with backwages computed from the time his
wages were withheld up to the time he is actually reinstated. The
Arbiter of origin is hereby directed to further hear complainant’s
money claims and to dispose them on the basis of law and
evidence obtaining.7
SO ORDERED.

The NLRC declared that private respondent was a regular

employee of petitioner by ruling thus:

As correctly pointed out by the complainant, we cannot

understand how an apprenticeship agreement filed with the
Department of Labor only on June 7, 1990 could be validly used
by the Labor Arbiter as basis to conclude that the complainant
was hired by respondent as a plain ‘apprentice’ on May 8, 1990.
Clearly, therefore, the complainant was respondent’s regular
employee under Article 280 of the Labor Code, as early as May 28,
1990, who thus enjoyed the security of tenure guaranteed in
Section 3, Article XIII of our 1987 Constitution.
The complaint being for illegal dismissal (among others) it then
behooves upon respondent, pursuant to Art. 277(b) and as ruled in

_______________

5 Id., at 47-48.
6 Id., p. 47.
7 Rollo, pp. 14-15.

659

VOL. 248, SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 659

Nitto Enterprises vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Edwin Gesulgon vs. NLRC, et al. (G.R. No. 90349, March 5, 1993,
3rd Div., Feliciano, J.) to prove that the dismissal of complainant

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165cb1b1963143db78a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
9/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

was for a valid cause. Absent such proof,8 we cannot but rule that
the complainant was illegally dismissed.

On January 28, 1994, Labor Arbiter Libo-on called for a

conference at which only private respondent’s
representative was present.
On April 22, 1994, a Writ of Execution was issued,
which reads:

NOW, THEREFORE, finding merit in [private respondent’s]

Motion for Issuance of the Writ, you are hereby commanded to
proceed to the premises of [petitioner] Nitto Enterprises and Jovy
Foster located at No. 1 74 Araneta Avenue, Potrero, Malabon,
Metro Manila or at any other places where their properties are
located and effect the reinstatement of herein [private
respondent] to his work last performed or at the option of the
respondent by payroll reinstatement.
You are also to collect the amount of P122,690.85 representing
his backwages as called for in the dispositive portion, and turn
over such amount to this Office for proper disposition.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same

was denied.
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari.
The issues raised before us are the following:

WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC

COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN HOLDING
THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS NOT AN APPRENTICE.

II

WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC

COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN HOLDING
THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT ADEQUATELY PROVEN THE
EXISTENCE OF A VALID CAUSE IN TERMINATING THE
SERVICE OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT.

_______________

8 Ibid.

660

660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nitto Enterprises vs. National Labor Relations Commission

We find no merit in the petition.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165cb1b1963143db78a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
9/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

Petitioner assails the NLRC’s finding that private

respondent Roberto Capili cannot plainly be considered an
apprentice since no apprenticeship program had yet been
filed and approved at the time the agreement was
executed.
Petitioner further insists that the mere signing of the
apprenticeship agreement already established an
employer-apprentice relationship.
Petitioner’s argument is erroneous.
The law is clear on this matter. Article 61 of the Labor
Code provides:

Contents of apprenticeship agreement.—Apprenticeship

agreements, including the main rates of apprentices, shall
conform to the rules issued by the Minister of Labor and
Employment. The period of apprenticeship shall not exceed six
months. 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 . The Ministry
shall develop standard model programs of apprenticeship.
(emphasis supplied)

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.
Based on the evidence before us, petitioner did not
comply with the requirements of the law. It is mandated
that apprenticeship agreements 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.
Prior approval by the Department of Labor and
Employment of the proposed apprenticeship program is,
therefore, a condition
661

VOL. 248, SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 661

Nitto Enterprises vs. National Labor Relations Commission
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165cb1b1963143db78a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
9/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

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.
Article 57 of the Labor Code provides that the State
aims to “establish a national apprenticeship program
through the participation of employers, workers and
government and non-government agencies” and “to
establish apprenticeship standards for the protection of
apprentices.” To translate such objectives into existence,
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. The
role of the DOLE in apprenticeship programs and
agreements cannot be debased.
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 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:

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 , except where the
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking
the completion or termination of which has been determined at
the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or
services to be performed in seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered
by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who
has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is
continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with
respect to the activity in which he is employed and his
employment shall continue while such activity exists. (Emphasis
supplied)

662

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165cb1b1963143db78a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
9/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nitto Enterprises vs. National Labor Relations Commission

and pursuant to the constitutional mandate 9to “protect the

rights of workers and promote their welfare.”
Petitioner further argues that, there is a valid cause for
the dismissal of private respondent.
There is an abundance of cases wherein the Court ruled
that the twin requirements of due process, substantive and
procedural,
10
must be complied with, before valid dismissal
exists. Without which, the dismissal becomes void.
The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute
the essential elements of due process. This simply means
that 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.
Ample opportunity connotes every kind of assistance
that management must accord the employee to enable him
to prepare adequately
11
for his defense including legal
representation.
As held
12
in the case of Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v.
NLRC:

The law requires that the employer must furnish the worker
sought to be dismissed with two (2) written notices before
termination of employee can be legally effected: (1) notice which
apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for
which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent notice which
informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him
(Sec. 13, BP 130; Sec. 2-6 Rule XIV, Book V, Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Labor Code as amended). Failure
to comply with the requirements taints the dismissal with
illegality. This procedure is mandatory; in the absence of which,
any judgment reached by management is void and inexistent
(Tingson, Jr. vs. NLRC, 185 SCRA 498 [1990]; National Service
Corp. vs. NLRC, 168 SCRA 122; Ruffy vs. NLRC, 182 SCRA 365
[1990]).

_______________

9 Sec. 18, Art. II, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines.
10 Century Textile Mills, Inc. v. NLRC, 161 SCRA 528 (1988); Gold City
Integrated Port Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 189 SCRA 811 (1990); Kwikway
Engineering Works v. NLRC, 195 SCRA 526 (1991).
11 Abiera v. National Labor Relations Commission, 215 SCRA 476
(1992).
12 210 SCRA 277 (1992).

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165cb1b1963143db78a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
9/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

663

VOL. 248, SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 663

Nitto Enterprises vs. National Labor Relations Commission

The fact is private respondent filed a case of illegal

dismissal with the Labor Arbiter only three 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 petitioner “strong-armed” him
into signing the aforementioned resignation letter and
quitclaim without explaining to him the contents thereof.
Petitioner made13
it clear to him that anyway, he did not
have a choice.
Petitioner cannot disguise the summary dismissal of
private respondent 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.
WHEREFORE, finding no abuse of discretion committed
by public respondent National Labor Relations
Commission, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

          Padilla (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and

Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Notes.—An employee who is forced to resign is

considered to have been illegally dismissed. (Guatson
International Travel and Tours, Inc. vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, 230 SCRA 815 [1994])
In job contracting, the principal is jointly and severally
liable with the contractor and insolvency or unwillingness
to pay by the contractor or direct employer is not a
prerequisite for the joint and severally liability of the
principal. (Development Bank of the Philippines vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, 233 SCRA 250
[1994])

——o0o——

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165cb1b1963143db78a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
9/12/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 248

13 Original Record, p. 39.

664

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165cb1b1963143db78a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11