G.R. No.

114337 September 29, 1995

NITTO ENTERPRISES vs. NLRC and ROBERTO CAPILI
Facts:
Nitto Enterprises (Nitto) is a company engaged in the sale of glass and aluminum products while Roberto
Capili was hired by Nitto as an apprentice machinist, molder and core maker.
An apprenticeship agreement was executed, the period of which was for six (6) months (from May 28,
1990 to November 28, 1990) and filed with DOLE on June 7, 1990. As stated by apprenticeship
agreement, Roberto will receive 75% of the applicable minimum wage.
Roberto was asked to resign due to negligence. He accidentally hit and injured the leg of an office
secretary while working. He also allegedly entered a workshop within the office which was not his work
station and he operated one of the press machines without authority and in the process injured his left
thumb. Nitto expended cost of medication of Roberto.
Nitto contended that there is a valid apprenticeship agreement because mere signing of the
apprenticeship agreement already established an employer-apprentice relationship.
Issue:
Does mere signing of apprenticeship agreement establishes an employer-apprentice relationship?

Law applicable:
Article 61 of the Labor Code provides:
Contents of apprenticeship agreement. Apprenticeship agreements, including the main 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% per cent of the applicable minimum
wage, may be entered into only in accordance with apprenticeship program duly approved by the
Minister of Labor and Employment. The Ministry shall develop standard model programs of
apprenticeship.
Case History:
August 6, 1990- Roberto filed a complaint before the NLRC Arbitration Branch NCR a complaint for illegal
dismissal and payment of other monetary benefits.
October 9, 1991- the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Nitto. Roberto violated the terms of apprenticeship
agreement and acted with negligence.

July 26, 1993- the NLRC reversed the decision of Labor Arbiter and ruled that Roberto was illegally
dismissed because he is a regular employee. Backwages were awarded.

Ruling of the Supreme Court:

No. 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 quo non before an apprenticeship agreement can be validly
entered into.
In the case at bench, the apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private respondent was
executed on May 28, 1990 and on the same date, an apprenticeship program was prepared by petitioner
and submitted to 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, since the apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private respondent has no force and
effect in the absence of a valid apprenticeship program duly approved by the DOLE, private respondent's
assertion 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.
Opinion of the Student
The Supreme Court correctly ruled in favor of Roberto. The law is clear that apprenticeship agreement
may be entered into only in accordance with apprenticeship program duly approved by DOLE. Here in this
case, the execution of apprenticeship agreement precedes the approval of apprenticeship agreement by
DOLE. The subsequent filing of the apprenticeship agreement does not change its effectivity which is at
the time of execution of the agreement.
Deviation from the law will contravene objective of the law to "establish a national apprenticeship

program through the participation of employers, workers and government and non-government
agencies" and "to establish apprenticeship standards for the protection of apprentices.