Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 834 views

    Nitto Enterprises vs. NLRC and Roberto Capili

    Uploaded by

    Pio Guieb Aguilar
    1) Nitto Enterprises hired Roberto Capili as an apprentice machinist under an apprenticeship agreement in May 1990. However, the agreement was not approved by the Department of Labor and Employment as required. 2) In August 1990, Capili was injured on the job in two separate incidents. He was asked to resign the following day. 3) The NLRC ruled that Capili was a regular employee, not an apprentice, since the agreement was not properly approved. As a regular employee, Capili's dismissal was ruled illegal and he was awarded back wages and reinstatement. Nitto Enterprises appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Nitto Enterprises vs. NLRC and Roberto Capili

    Uploaded by

    Pio Guieb Aguilar
    834 views1 page
    1) Nitto Enterprises hired Roberto Capili as an apprentice machinist under an apprenticeship agreement in May 1990. However, the agreement was not approved by the Department of Labor and Employment as required. 2) In August 1990, Capili was injured on the job in two separate incidents. He was asked to resign the following day. 3) The NLRC ruled that Capili was a regular employee, not an apprentice, since the agreement was not properly approved. As a regular employee, Capili's dismissal was ruled illegal and he was awarded back wages and reinstatement. Nitto Enterprises appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Original Description:

    Labor

    Original Title

    Nitto Enterprises vs. Nlrc and Roberto Capili

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Nitto Enterprises hired Roberto Capili as an apprentice machinist under an apprenticeship agreement in May 1990. However, the agreement was not approved by the Department of Labor and Employment as required. 2) In August 1990, Capili was injured on the job in two separate incidents. He was asked to resign the following day. 3) The NLRC ruled that Capili was a regular employee, not an apprentice, since the agreement was not properly approved. As a regular employee, Capili's dismissal was ruled illegal and he was awarded back wages and reinstatement. Nitto Enterprises appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    834 views1 page

    Nitto Enterprises vs. NLRC and Roberto Capili

    Uploaded by

    Pio Guieb Aguilar
    1) Nitto Enterprises hired Roberto Capili as an apprentice machinist under an apprenticeship agreement in May 1990. However, the agreement was not approved by the Department of Labor and Employment as required. 2) In August 1990, Capili was injured on the job in two separate incidents. He was asked to resign the following day. 3) The NLRC ruled that Capili was a regular employee, not an apprentice, since the agreement was not properly approved. As a regular employee, Capili's dismissal was ruled illegal and he was awarded back wages and reinstatement. Nitto Enterprises appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    1) NITTO ENTERPRISES vs.

    NLRC and ROBERTO CAPILI


    RULING:
    FACTS:
    Yes. The apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and
    Petitioner Nitto Enterprises, a company engaged in the sale private respondent was executed on May 28, 1990 allegedly
    of glass and aluminum products, hired Roberto Capili sometime in employing the latter as an apprentice in the trade of "care
    May 1990 as an apprentice machinist, molder and coremaker as maker/molder. However, the apprenticeship Agreement was filed only
    evidenced by an apprenticeship agreement 2for a period of six (6) on June 7, 1990.Notwithstanding the absence of approval by the
    months from May 28, 1990 to November 28, 1990 with a daily wage Department of Labor and Employment, the apprenticeship
    rate of P66.75 which was 75% of the applicable minimum wage. On agreement was enforced the day it was signed. The act of filing the
    August 2, 1990, Roberto Capili who was handling a piece of glass proposed apprenticeship program with the Department of Labor and
    which he was working on, accidentally hit and injured the leg of an Employment is a preliminary step towards its final approval and does
    office secretary who was treated at a nearby hospital. Further, Capili not instantaneously give rise to an employer-apprentice relationship.
    entered a workshop within the office premises which was not his
    work station. There, he operated one of the power press machines Nitto Enterprises did not comply with the requirements of the law. It is
    without authority and in the process injured his left thumb. The mandated that apprenticeship agreements entered into by the
    following day he was asked to resign. Three days after, , private employer and apprentice shall be entered only in accordance with
    respondent formally filed before the NLRC Arbitration Branch, the apprenticeship program duly approved by the Minister of Labor
    National Capital Region a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment and Employment. Thus, the apprenticeship agreement has no force
    of other monetary benefits. and effect; and Capili is considered to be a regular employee of the
    company.
    The Labor Arbiter rendered his decision finding the
    termination of private respondent as valid and dismissing the money OPINION:
    claim for lack of merit. On appeal, NLRC issued an order reversing
    the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC declared that Capili was I concur with the Courts findings that since the
    a regular employee of Nitto Enterprises and not an apprentice. apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private respondent
    Consequently, Labor Arbiter issued a Writ of Execution ordering have no force and effect in the absence of a valid apprenticeship
    for the reinstatement of Capili and to collect his back wages. program duly approved by the DOLE, private respondent's assertion
    Petitioner, Nitto Enterprises filed a case to the Supreme Court. 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
    ISSUE: Does the NLRC correctly rule that Capili is a regular 280 of the Labor Code.
    employee and not an apprentice of Nitto Enterprises?

    LAW: Article 280 of the Labor Code

    You might also like