Case Related To TESDA
Case Related To TESDA
Case Related To TESDA
Palad
Facts
On 15 July 1997, Century Canning Corporation (petitioner) hired Gloria C. Palad (Palad) as fish cleaner at petitioners tuna and sardines factory. Palad signed on 17 July 1997 an apprenticeship agreement with petitioner. Palad received an apprentice allowance of P138.75 daily. On 25 July 1997, petitioner submitted its apprenticeship program for approval to the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). On 26 September 1997, the TESDA approved petitioners apprenticeship program.
A performance evaluation was conducted on 15 November 1997, where petitioner gave Palad a rating of N.I. or needs improvement since she scored only 27.75% based on a 100% performance indicator. Furthermore, according to the performance evaluation, Palad incurred numerous tardiness and absences. As a consequence, petitioner issued a termination notice dated 22 November 1997 to Palad, informing her of her termination effective at the close of business hours of 28 November 1997. Palad then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of pro-rated 13th month pay for the year 1997. On 25 February 1999, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but ordered petitioner to pay Palad her last salary and her pro-rated 13th month pay.
SO ORDERED.
NLRCS DECISION
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Arbiter dated 25 February 1999 is hereby MODIFIED in that, in addition, respondents are ordered to pay complainants backwages for two (2) months in the amount of P7,176.00 (P138.75 x 26 x 2 mos.). All other dispositions of the Arbiter as appearing in the dispositive portion of his decision are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED Upon denial of Palads motion for reconsideration, Palad filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
The ISSUES
1. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS NOT AN APPRENTICE; and 2. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT ADEQUATELY PROVEN THE EXISTENCE OF A VALID CAUSE IN TERMINATING THE SERVICE OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT
ART. 61. Contents of apprenticeship agreements. Apprenticeship agreements, including the wage 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 percent of the applicable minimum wage, may be entered into only in accordance with apprenticeship programs duly approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment. The Ministry shall develop standard model programs of apprenticeship. (Emphasis supplied) In Nitto Enterprises v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court cited Article 61 of the Labor Code and held that an apprenticeship program should first be approved by the DOLE before an apprentice may be hired, otherwise the person hired will be considered a regular employee.
Republic Act No. 7796 (RA 7796), which created the TESDA, has transferred the authority over apprenticeship programs from the Bureau of Local Employment of the DOLE to the TESDA. RA 7796 emphasizes TESDAs approval of the apprenticeship program as a pre-requisite for the hiring of apprentices. Such intent is clear under Section 4 of RA 7796: SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. As used in this Act: xxx j) Apprenticeship training within employment with compulsory related theoretical instructions involving a contract between an apprentice and an employer on an approved apprenticeable occupation; k) Apprentice is a person undergoing training for an approved apprenticeable occupation during an established period assured by an apprenticeship agreement; l) Apprentice Agreement is a contract wherein a prospective employer binds himself to train the apprentice who in turn accepts the terms oftraining for a recognized apprenticeable occupation emphasizing the rights, duties and responsibilities of each party; m) Apprenticeable Occupation is an occupation officially endorsed by a tripartite body and approved for apprenticeship by the Authority [TESDA]; (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, the apprenticeship agreement was entered into between the parties before petitioner filed its apprenticeship program with the TESDA for approval. Petitioner and Palad executed the apprenticeship agreement on 17 July 1997 wherein it was stated that the training would start on 17 July 1997 and would end approximately in December 1997. On 25 July 1997, petitioner submitted for approval its apprenticeship program, which the TESDA subsequently approved on 26 September 1997. Clearly, the apprenticeship agreement was enforced even before the TESDA approved petitioners apprenticeship program. Thus, the apprenticeship agreement is void because it lacked prior approval from the TESDA.
The requisite TESDA approval of the apprenticeship program prior to the hiring of apprentices was further emphasized by the DOLE with the issuance of Department Order No. 68-04 on 18 August 2004. Department Order No. 6804, which provides the guidelines in the implementation of the Apprenticeship and Employment Program of the government, specifically states that no enterprise shall be allowed to hire apprentices unless its apprenticeship program is registered and approved by TESDA.
Since Palad is not considered an apprentice because the apprenticeship agreement was enforced before the TESDAs approval of petitioners apprenticeship program, Palad is deemed a regular employee performing the job of a fish cleaner. Clearly, the job of a fish cleaner is necessary in petitioners business as a tuna and sardines factory. Under Article 280 of the Labor Code, an employment is deemed 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.
END