G.R. No.

114337 September 29, 1995 Same; Dismissals; Due Process; The twin
requirements of due process, substantive and
NITTO ENTERPRISES, petitioner,
procedural, must be complied with before valid
vs. dismissal exists, otherwise the dismissal becomes
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION void.—There is an abundance of cases wherein the
and ROBERTO CAPILI, respondents. Court ruled that the twin requirements of due
process, substantive and procedural, must be
Labor Law; Apprenticeship Agreements; Prior complied with, before valid dismissal exists.
approval by the Department of Labor and Without which, the dismissal becomes void. The
Employment of the proposed apprenticeship twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute
program is a condition sine qua non before an the essential elements of due process. This simply
apprenticeship agreement can be validly entered means that the employer shall afford the worker
into.—In the case at bench, the apprenticeship ample opportunity to be heard and to defend
agreement between petitioner and private himself with the assistance of his representative, if
respondent was executed on May 28, 1990 he so desires. Ample opportunity connotes every
allegedly employing the latter as an apprentice in kind of assistance that management must accord
the trade of “care maker/molder.” On the same the employee to enable him to prepare adequately
date, an apprenticeship program was prepared by for his defense including legal representation.
petitioner and submitted to the Department of Labor
and Employment. However, the apprenticeship
Agreement was filed only on June 7, 1990.
KAPUNAN, J.:
Notwithstanding the absence of ap proval by the
Department of Labor and Employment, the This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
apprenticeship agreement was enforced the day it Rules of Court seeking to annul the
was signed. Based on the evidence before us, decision1 rendered by public respondent National
petitioner did not comply with the requirements of Labor Relations Commission, which reversed the
the law. It is mandated that apprenticeship decision of the Labor Arbiter.
agreements entered into by the employer and
Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows:
apprentice shall be entered only in accordance with
the apprenticeship program duly approved by the Petitioner Nitto Enterprises, a company engaged in
Minister of Labor and Employment. Prior approval the sale of glass and aluminum products, hired
by the Department of Labor and Employment of the Roberto Capili sometime in May 1990 as an
proposed apprenticeship program is, therefore, a apprentice machinist, molder and core maker as
condition sine qua non before an apprenticeship evidenced by an apprenticeship agreement2 for a
agreement can be validly entered into. 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
Same; Same; Where the apprenticeship agreement wage.
has no force and effect, the worker hired as
At around 1:00 p.m. of August 2, 1990, Roberto
apprentice should be considered as a regular
Capili who was handling a piece of glass which he
employee.—Hence, since the apprenticeship
was working on, accidentally hit and injured the leg
agreement between petitioner and private
of an office secretary who was treated at a nearby
respondent has no force and effect in the absence
hospital.
of a valid apprenticeship program duly approved by
the DOLE, private respondent’s assertion that he Later that same day, after office hours, private
was hired not as an apprentice but as a delivery respondent entered a workshop within the office
boy (“kargador” or “pahinante”) deserves credence. premises which was not his work station. There, he
He should rightly be considered as a regular operated one of the power press machines without
employee of petitioner as defined by Article 280 of authority and in the process injured his left thumb.
the Labor Code. Petitioner spent the amount of P1,023.04 to cover
the medication of private respondent.
The following day, Roberto Capili was asked to On August 3, 1990 private respondent executed a
resign in a letter3 which reads: Quitclaim and Release in favor of petitioner for and
in consideration of the sum of P1,912.79.4
Three days after, or on August 6, 1990, private
August 2, 1990
respondent formally filed before the NLRC
Wala siyang tanggap ng utos mula sa Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region a
superbisor at wala siyang experiensa kung complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of other
papaano gamitin and "TOOL" sa pagbuhat monetary benefits.
ng salamin, sarili niyang desisyon ang
On October 9, 1991, the Labor Arbiter rendered his
paggamit ng tool at may disgrasya at
decision finding the termination of private
nadamay pa ang isang sekretarya ng
respondent as valid and dismissing the money
kompanya.
claim for lack of merit. The dispositive portion of the
Sa araw ding ito limang (5) minute ang ruling reads:
nakakalipas mula alas-singko ng hapon
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
siya ay pumasok sa shop na hindi naman
termination is valid and for cause, and the
sakop ng kanyang trabaho. Pinakialaman
money claims dismissed for lack of merit.
at kinalikot ang makina at nadisgrasya niya
ang kanyang sariling kamay. The respondent however is ordered to pay
the complainant the amount of P500.00 as
Nakagastos ang kompanya ng mga
financial assistance.
sumusunod:
SO ORDERED.5
Emergency and doctor fee P715.00
Medecines (sic) and others 317.04 Labor Arbiter Patricio P. Libo-on gave two reasons
for ruling that the dismissal of Roberto Capilian was
Bibigyan siya ng kompanya ng Siyam na
valid. First, private respondent who was hired as an
araw na libreng sahod hanggang
apprentice violated the terms of their agreement
matanggal ang tahi ng kanyang kamay.
when he acted with gross negligence resulting in
Tatanggapin niya ang sahod niyang anim the injury not only to himself but also to his fellow
na araw, mula ika-30 ng Hulyo at ika-4 ng worker. Second, private respondent had shown that
Agosto, 1990. "he does not have the proper attitude in
employment particularly the handling of machines
Ang kompanya ang magbabayad ng lahat without authority and proper training.6
ng gastos pagtanggal ng tahi ng kanyang
kamay, pagkatapos ng siyam na araw On July 26, 1993, the National Labor Relations
mula ika-2 ng Agosto. Commission issued an order reversing the decision
of the Labor Arbiter, the dispositive portion of which
Sa lahat ng nakasulat sa itaas, hinihingi ng reads:
kompanya ang kanyang resignasyon,
kasama ng kanyang comfirmasyon at pag- WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is
ayon na ang lahat sa itaas ay totoo. hereby set aside. The respondent is
hereby directed to reinstate complainant to
  his work last performed with backwages
Naiintindihan ko ang lahat ng nakasulat sa computed from the time his wages were
itaas, at ang lahat ng ito ay aking withheld up to the time he is actually
pagkakasala sa hindi pagsunod sa reinstated. The Arbiter of origin is hereby
alintuntunin ng kompanya. directed to further hear complainant's
money claims and to dispose them on the
(Sgd.)Roberto Capili basis of law and evidence obtaining.
Roberto Capili SO ORDERED.7
 The NLRC declared that private Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
respondent was a regular employee of but the same was denied.
petitioner by ruling thus:
Hence, the instant petition — for certiorari.
As correctly pointed out by the
The issues raised before us are the
complainant, we cannot understand how
following:
an apprenticeship agreement filed with the
Department of Labor only on June 7, 1990 I
could be validly used by the Labor Arbiter
as basis to conclude that the complainant WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC
was hired by respondent as a plain RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED
"apprentice" on May 28, 1990. Clearly, GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
therefore, the complainant was HOLDING THAT PRIVATE
respondent's regular employee under RESPONDENT WAS NOT AN
Article 280 of the Labor Code, as early as APPRENTICE.
May 28,1990, who thus enjoyed the II
security of tenure guaranteed in Section 3,
Article XIII of our 1987 Constitution. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC
RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED
The complainant being for illegal dismissal GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
(among others) it then behooves upon HOLDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT
respondent, pursuant to Art. 227(b) and as ADEQUATELY PROVEN THE
ruled in Edwin Gesulgon vs. NLRC, et al. EXISTENCE OF A VALID CAUSE IN
(G.R. No. 90349, March 5, 1993, 3rd Div., TERMINATING THE SERVICE OF
Feliciano, J.) to prove that the dismissal of PRIVATE RESPONDENT.
complainant was for a valid cause. Absent
such proof, we cannot but rule that the
complainant was illegally dismissed.8
We find no merit in the petition.
On January 28, 1994, Labor Arbiter Libo-on called
Petitioner assails the NLRC's finding that private
for a conference at which only private respondent's
respondent Roberto Capili cannot plainly be
representative was present.
considered an apprentice since no apprenticeship
On April 22, 1994, a Writ of Execution was issued, program had yet been filed and approved at the
which reads: time the agreement was executed.

NOW, THEREFORE, finding merit in Petitioner further insists that the mere signing of the
[private respondent's] Motion for Issuance apprenticeship agreement already established an
of the Writ, you are hereby commanded to employer-apprentice relationship.
proceed to the premises of [petitioner]
Petitioner's argument is erroneous.
Nitto Enterprises and Jovy Foster located
at No. l 74 Araneta Avenue, Portero, The law is clear on this matter. Article 61 of the
Malabon, Metro Manila or at any other Labor Code provides:
places where their properties are located
and effect the reinstatement of herein Contents of apprenticeship agreement. —
[private respondent] to his work last Apprenticeship agreements, including the
performed or at the option of the main rates of apprentices, shall conform to
respondent by payroll reinstatement. the rules issued by the Minister of Labor
and Employment. The period of
You are also to collect the amount of apprenticeship shall not exceed six
P122,690.85 representing his backwages months. Apprenticeship agreements
as called for in the dispositive portion, and providing for wage rates below the legal
turn over such amount to this Office for minimum wage, which in no case shall
proper disposition. start below 75% per cent of the applicable
minimum wage, may be entered into only
 in accordance with apprenticeship program Hence, since the apprenticeship agreement
duly approved by the Minister of Labor and between petitioner and private respondent has no
Employment. The Ministry shall develop force and effect in the absence of a valid
standard model programs of apprenticeship program duly approved by the
apprenticeship. (emphasis supplied) DOLE, private respondent's assertion that he was
hired not as an apprentice but as a delivery boy
In the case at bench, the apprenticeship agreement
("kargador" or "pahinante") deserves credence. He
between petitioner and private respondent was
should rightly be considered as a regular employee
executed on May 28, 1990 allegedly employing the
of petitioner as defined by Article 280 of the Labor
latter as an apprentice in the trade of "care
Code:
maker/molder." On the same date, an
apprenticeship program was prepared by petitioner Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment.
and submitted to the Department of Labor and — The provisions of written agreement to
Employment. However, the apprenticeship the contrary notwithstanding and
Agreement was filed only on June 7, 1990. regardless of the oral agreement of the
Notwithstanding the absence of approval by the parties, an employment shall be deemed
Department of Labor and Employment, the to be regular where the employee has
apprenticeship agreement was enforced the day it been engaged to perform activities which
was signed. are usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the
Based on the evidence before us, petitioner did not
employer, except where the employment
comply with the requirements of the law. It is
has been fixed for a specific project or
mandated that apprenticeship agreements entered
undertaking the completion or termination
into by the employer and apprentice shall be
of which has been determined at the time
entered only in accordance with the apprenticeship
of the engagement of the employee or
program duly approved by the Minister of Labor
where the work or services to be
and Employment.
performed is seasonal in nature and the
Prior approval by the Department of Labor and employment is for the duration of the
Employment of the proposed apprenticeship season.
program is, therefore, a condition sine quo
An employment shall be deemed to be
non before an apprenticeship agreement can be
casual if it is not covered by the preceding
validly entered into.
paragraph: Provided, That, any employee
The act of filing the proposed apprenticeship who has rendered at least one year of
program with the Department of Labor and service, whether such service is
Employment is a preliminary step towards its final continuous or broken, shall be considered
approval and does not instantaneously give rise to a regular employee with respect to the
an employer-apprentice relationship. activity in which he is employed and his
employment shall continue while such
Article 57 of the Labor Code provides that the State activity exists. (Emphasis supplied)
aims to "establish a national apprenticeship
program through the participation of employers, and pursuant to the constitutional mandate to
workers and government and non-government "protect the rights of workers and promote their
agencies" and "to establish apprenticeship welfare."9
standards for the protection of apprentices." To
Petitioner further argues that, there is a valid cause
translate such objectives into existence, prior
for the dismissal of private respondent.
approval of the DOLE to any apprenticeship
program has to be secured as a condition sine qua There is an abundance of cases wherein the Court
non before any such apprenticeship agreement can ruled that the twin requirements of due process,
be fully enforced. The role of the DOLE in substantive and procedural, must be complied with,
apprenticeship programs and agreements cannot before valid dismissal exists. 10 Without which, the
be debased. dismissal becomes void.
The twin requirements of notice and hearing alleged resignation and subsequent execution of a
constitute the essential elements of due process. Quitclaim and Release. A judicious examination of
This simply means that the employer shall afford both events belies any spontaneity on private
the worker ample opportunity to be heard and to respondent's part.
defend himself with the assistance of his
WHEREFORE, finding no abuse of discretion
representative, if he so desires.
committed by public respondent National Labor
Ample opportunity connotes every kind of Relations Commission, the appealed decision is
assistance that management must accord the hereby AFFIRMED.
employee to enable him to prepare adequately for
SO ORDERED.
his defense including legal representation. 11
Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Hermosisima, Jr.,
As held in the case of Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Inc.
JJ., concur.
v. NLRC: 12
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 in existent (Tingson, Jr. vs. NLRC, 185
SCRA 498 [1990]; National Service Corp.
vs. NLRC, 168 SCRA 122; Ruffy vs.
NLRC. 182 SCRA 365 [1990]).
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 made it clear to him that
anyway, he did not have a choice. 13
Petitioner cannot disguise the summary dismissal
of private respondent by orchestrating the latter's