Century Canning Coporation V. Ca: Ruling
Century Canning Coporation V. Ca: Ruling
Century Canning Coporation V. Ca: Ruling
CA
August 17, 2007 | J. Carpio RULING:
By: Perry Gloria was a regular employee
SUMMARY: The Court reiterated the ruling in Nitto Enterprises v. NLRC, which held
Gloria Palad was hired as a fish cleaner under an apprenticeship that an apprenticeship program should first be approved by the DOLE
agreement. However, the apprenticeship agreement was executed before an apprentice may be hired, otherwise the person hired will be
before the apprenticeship program was approved by the TESDA. The SC considered a regular employee. It is mandated that apprenticeship
ruled that the approval of the apprenticeship program was a condition agreements entered into by the employer and apprentice shall be
sine qua non before a valid apprenticeship agreement can be validly entered only in accordance with the apprenticeship program duly
entered into. approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment. Prior approval by
the DOLE of the proposed apprenticeship program is, therefore, a
condition sine qua non before an apprenticeship agreement can be
FACTS: validly entered into.
On 15 July 1997, Gloria Palad was hired as a “fish cleaner” by the
petitioner in its tuna and sardines factory. 2 days later, the parties In this case, the apprenticeship agreement was entered into between
signed an apprenticeship agreement. An apprenticeship program was the parties before petitioner filed its apprenticeship program with the
submitted by the petitioner to TESDA which was subsequently TESDA for approval. Clearly, the apprenticeship agreement was
approved on 26 September 1997. Clearly, the apprenticeship enforced even before the TESDA approved petitioner’s apprenticeship
agreement was executed between the parties long before the program. Thus, the apprenticeship agreement is void because it lacked
apprenticeship program was approved by TESDA. prior approval from the TESDA.
According to the petitioner, a performance evaluation was conducted The TESDA’s approval of the employer’s apprenticeship program is
on Gloria Palad on 15 November 1997 where she scored only 27.75% required before the employer is allowed to hire apprentices. Prior
based on a 100% performance indicator. Furthermore, petitioner approval from the TESDA is necessary to ensure that only employers in
alleged that Gloria incurred numerous tardiness and absences. As a the highly technical industries may employ apprentices and only in
consequence thereof, petitioner terminated the services of Gloria apprenticeable occupations.
prompting her to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Since Palad is not considered an apprentice because the apprenticeship
The LA dismissed the complaint of Gloria and this was affirmed by the agreement was enforced before the TESDA’s approval of petitioner’s
NLRC. However, the CA reversed the ruling of the NLRC finding that apprenticeship program, Palad is deemed a regular employee
Gloria was a regular employee and was illegally dismissed. Hence, this performing the job of a "fish cleaner." Clearly, the job of a "fish cleaner"
petition filed by the corporation to the SC. is necessary in petitioner’s business as a tuna and sardines factory.
However, in the case at bar, there was no clear and sufficient evidence
to warrant her dismissal. There was an absence of any written
warnings given to the complainant. Moreover, there was doubtful
authenticity and/or credibility with respect to the “performance
evaluation” made. The SC could only infer that said evaluation was
made belatedly, specifically, after the filing of the case.
Under Article 227 of the Labor Code, the employer has the burden of
proving that the termination was for a valid or authorized cause, and
the petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that Palad was terminated
for valid reasons.