REGARDING APPRENTICESHIP

CENTURY CANNING CORPORATION v CA & PALAD 17 August 2007

Palad was hired by Petitioner and started working as an apprentices on 17 July 1997. The apprenticeship agreement was submitted to TESDA a week after. The TESDA approval was granted on 26 September 1997.

Palad received low ratings and reportedly had incurred numerous tardiness and absences. As such, she was issued a termination notice on 22 November 1997, to take effect on 28 November 1997. She file a complaint for illegal dismissal and underpayment/non-payment. The case was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed with modification by the NLRC. Palad’s MR was denied and she went to the CA. The CA declared that Palad was illegally dismissed. Petitioner Company went to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that TESDA approval of an Apprenticeship Program is a pre-requisite to hiring apprentices. It stated that RA7796 has since transferred to TESDA from the DOLE the authority over apprenticeship programs. Prior TESDA approval is needed in order to ensure the protection of apprentices from possible abuses of 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.”

Petitioner entered into an apprenticeship agreement with Palad before the apprenticeship program was submitted for TESDA approval. The apprenticeship agreement was enforced even before TESDA approval, hence the apprenticeship agreement is void because it lacked prior TESDA approval. Palad is a regular employee performing work necessary in petitioner’s business as a fish cleaner.

Palad was also deemed illegally dismissed because the employer failed in his burden of proving the validity of Palad’s dismissal. “ When the alleged valid cause for the termination of employment is not clearly proven, as in this case, the law considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal.” Palad was also denied due process as she was not warned of her alleged poor performance, neither was Palad given the opportunity to explain and defend herself.

APPLICATION OF TWO-NOTICE RULE IN THE CASE OF AN OFW; DEFINITION OF APPRENTICE

WALLEM MARITIME SERVICES, INC. & WALLEM SHIPMANAGEMENT LTD., v NLRC 15 October 1996

Macatuno and Gurimbao, able-bodied Filipino seamen were on board their Liberian-registered vessel M/V Fortuna when they had an altercation with a cadet/apprentice officer when the ship was docked in Kawasaki, Japan. Both Filipinos were repatriated to the Philippines where they subsequently filed separate complaints with the POEA (which at that time still had jurisdiction over such matters). POEA ruled for them. The submitted evidence, was not given much weight considering that it consisted only of handpicked and copied portions of the supposed official logbook of the vessel that were not even authenticated. Even granting that the logbook entries were true, such would show the denial of due process to the complainants. The NLRC upheld the POEA .

The Supreme Court upheld the assailed decisions. Dismissal can only be effected for just and authorized causes. Management prerogative is subject to regulation by the State’s police power. While a ship’s logbook is a vital evidence, as per Article 612 of the Code of Commerce, in the present case, the Petitioner company submitted typewritten collated excerpts of the supposed captain’s logbook. The company could have easily photocopied the pertinent pages of the logbook itself. Petitioner failed to present substantial evidence to prove the legality of the dismissal.

The failure to substantiate grounds for a valid dismissal was worsened by the manner of the termination of employment. The right and power to dismiss and employee should not be confused with the manner of exercising such right. The Labor Code provides that termination of employment can only ensue after notice and formal investigation. Even if the captain witnessed the altercation, such will not justify dispensing of the two-notice rule.

The employment contract punishes assault on a senior officer. In the present case, the alleged victim is not a superior officer but an apprentice officer. “ An apprentice is a person bound in the form of law to a master, to learn from him his art, trade, or business, and to serve him during the time of his apprenticeship. “ The Court does not tolerate assault in any form but in cases where a person’s livelihood is at stake, the employment contract must be strictly interpreted in favor of the worker, to affirm the constitutional provision protecting labor.