Marie Chielo H.

Ybio July 10, 2014

JD-III Labor Relations

Case Digest

1. NITTO ENTERPRISES vs. NLRC
248 SCRA 654
G.R. No. 114337
September 29, 1995


Facts:

Private respondent Roberto Capili was hired by petitioner as an apprentice machinist, molder
and core maker as evidenced by an apprenticeship agreement for a period of six months from
May 28, 1990 to November 28, 1990 with a daily wage rate of P66.75. On August 2, 1990,
Roberto Capili who was handling a piece of glass which he was working on, accidentally hit and
injured the leg of an office secretary. Later that same day, after office hours, private
respondent entered a workshop within the office premises which was not his work station.
There, he operated one of the power press machines without authority and in the process
injured his left thumb. Petitioner spent for the medication of private respondent. The following
day, Capili was asked to resign in a letter. Thereafter, private respondent executed a Quitclaim
and Release in favor of petitioner. Three days after, Capili formally filed before the NLRC a
complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of other monetary benefits. The Labor Arbiter
rendered a decision finding the termination of private respondent as valid and dismissing the
money claim for lack of merit. However, the NLRC reversed the decision of the LA. Hence, this
instant petition.

Issues:

a.) Whether or not the apprenticeship agreement between the petitioner and private
respondent is valid

b.) Whether or not there is a valid cause for the dismissal of private respondent


Ruling:

a.) No. Citing Article 61 of the Labor Code, it is mandated that apprenticeship agreements
entered into by the employer and apprentice shall be entered only in accordance with
the apprenticeship program duly approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment.
Prior approval by the Department of Labor and Employment of the proposed
apprenticeship program is, therefore, a condition sine qua non before an apprenticeship
agreement can be validly entered into.

In the case at bar, the apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private
respondent was executed on May 28, 1990 allegedly employing the latter as an
apprentice. On the same date, an apprenticeship program was prepared by petitioner
and submitted to the DOLE. However, the apprenticeship Agreement was filed only on
June 7, 1990. Notwithstanding the absence of approval by the Department of Labor and
Employment, the apprenticeship agreement was enforced the day it was signed. Hence,
the apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private respondent has no force
and effect because of the absence of the requirement of a duly approved apprenticeship
program by the DOLE.


b.) No. As the ruling in Pepsi- Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v. NLRC provides that, The law
requires that the employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two
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. This procedure is mandatory. In the instant case, 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.


2. Filamer Christian Institute vs. CA
G.R. No. 75112
October 16, 1990

Facts:

Private respondent Potenciano Kapunan, Sr. was struck by the Pinoy jeep owned by petitioner
Filamer and driven by its alleged employee Funtecha, as the former was walking along Roxas
Avenue, Roxas City at 6:30 in the evening of October 20, 1977. As a result of the accident,
Kapunan, Sr. suffered multiple injuries for which he was hospitalized for a total of 20 days. It
was showed that at the precise time of the vehicular accident, only one headlight of the jeep
was functioning. Funtecha, who only had a student driver's permit, was driving after having
persuaded Allan Masa, the authorized driver, to turn over the wheels to him. Thereafter,
Kapunan, Sr. instituted a criminal case against Funtecha alone in the City Court of Roxas City
for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. He reserved his right to file an
independent civil action. The trial court found Funtecha guilty as charged and on appeal, his
conviction was affirmed by the then CFI. Pursuant to his reservation, Kapunan, Sr. commenced
a civil case for damages before the RTC naming petitioner Filamer and Funtecha as defendants.
The court held the defendants liable for damages. The decision was appealed to the CA by
Filamer which the respondent court, however, affirmed. Hence, this present recourse.


Issue:

Whether or not the term "employer" as used in Article 2180 is applicable to petitioner Filamer
with reference to Funtecha



Ruling:


No. As also invoked by petitioner, the Court based its ruling on Article 14, Rule X of Book III of
the Labor Code which reads:

Sec. 14. Working scholars. There is no employer-employee relationship between
students on one hand, and schools, colleges or universities on the other, where
students work for the latter in exchange for the privilege to study free of charge;
provided the students are given real opportunity, including such facilities as may be
reasonable, necessary to finish their chosen court under such arrangement.


The wording of Section 14 is clear and explicit and leaves no room for equivocation. To dismiss
the implementing rule as one which governs only the "personal relationship" between the
school and its students and not where there is already a third person involved, as espoused by
private respondents, is to read into the law something that was not legislated there in the first
place. In the case at bar, petitioner Filamer cannot be considered as Funtecha's employer.
Funtecha belongs to that special category of students who render service to the school in
exchange for free tuition Funtecha worked for petitioner for two hours daily for five days a
week.