Atlanta Industries inc . et al v Sebolino Gr. no. 187320 Jan.

26 2011
Facts:
Almoite,Costales,Sebolino and Sagun were hired as machine operator, extruder
operator and scaleman in Atlanta Industries, Inc. An apprenticeship agreement was
thereafter entered in by Almoite and Costales then thereafter a second one the
same with Sebolino and Sagun. Upon expiration of the said apprenticeship
agreement, the respondents were dismissed. Hence a complaint was filed before
the labor arbiter along with 13 employees and the case was raffled. The labor
arbiter finds 9 of them were illegally dismissed including respondents, Atlanta filed
an appealed to the NLRC alleging that Almoite and Costales entered into an
compromise agreement to which reversed the said decision withdrawing claims of
Almoite and Costales and finding there was no illegal dismissal on Sebolino and
Sagun. Respondent Appealed to the C.A to which the latter Court reversed the
decision of the NLRC holding that respondent were already employee prior to the
apprenticeship agreement and that the same were defective for the agreements did
not indicate the trade or occupation in which the apprentice would be trained;
neither was the apprenticeship program approved by the TESDA. A motion for
reconsideration was file but was thereafter denied hence this petition on certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not respondents were already employees when they were required to un
dergo apprenticeship.
Held:

Yes. The respondents were regular employees because they occupied positions such
as machine operator, scaleman and extruder operator tasks that are usually
necessary and desirable in petitioner employers usual business or trade as
manufacturer of plastic building materials. These tasks and their nature
characterized the respondents as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor
Code renders the apprenticeship agreements irrelevant as far as the four are
concerned Thus, when they were dismissed without just or authorized cause,
without notice, and without the opportunity to be heard, their dismissal was illegal
under the law.

NITTO ENTERPRISES,vs.NLRC.

Facts:
Petitioner, hired Roberto Capili as an apprentice machinist, molder and core maker,
with a daily wage rate of P66.75 which was 75% of the applicable minimum wage.
On August 2, he accidentally hit and injured the leg of an office secretary who was
treated at a nearby hospital. In the afternoon of the same day he operated one of
the power press machines without authority and in the process injured his left
thumb, prompting the petitioner to shoulder the medical expenses. The next day,
Capili was made to sign a Quit Claim and Release in favor of the petitioner and
received his salary for the five days that he was unable to work due to his injury. But
three days after, he filed an illegal dismissal complaint and demanded monetary
consideration thereof before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission in the National Capital Region. But the Labor Arbiter dismissed his
complaint citing two reasons: that private respondent who was hired as an
apprentice violated the terms of their agreement when he acted with gross
negligence resulting in the injury not only to himself but also to his fellow worker.
And that private respondent had shown that "he does not have the proper attitude
in employment particularly the handling of machines without authority and proper
training.However, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the decision
of the Labor Arbiter and ordered for the reinstatement of Capili and that he must be
given his back wages which shall be computed from the time his wages were
withheld up to the time he is actually reinstated. Thus, Nito Enterprises filed a
certiorari against NLRC alleging that the Commission committed grave abuse of
discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiters decision and in holding that the petitioner
failed to prove a valid cause in the dismissal of Capili.
Issues: Whether or not there was employer-apprentice relationship between
petitioner and private respondent.
Held:
Supreme Court ruled there was no employer-apprentice relationship between
petitioner and private respondent because the former failed to follow the guidelines
set forth under Art 61 of the Labor. In the case at bar, the Court found out that the
apprenticeship program was prepared by petitioner and submitted to the
Department of Labor and Employment on the day private respondent was hired.
However, such program was not yet approved by the Department of Labor and
Employment, but it was enforced the day it was signed. The Court said the

apprenticeship program was null and void because prior approval is a condition sine
qua non or indispensable. The act of finding the apprenticeship program was only
the first step towards acquiring approval from the Department of Labor and
Employment. Thus the Court gave weight to the claim of private respondent that he
was hired as a kargador, his employment status thereof will fall under Art. 280 of
the Labor Code regarding Regular and Casual Employment.

MARITES BERNARDO et al. vs. NLRC

FACTS:
The 43 petitioners are deaf-mutes who were hired on various periods from 1988 to
1993 by respondent Far East Bank and Trust Co. as Money Sorters and Counters
through a uniformly worded agreement called "Employment Contract for
Handicapped Workers". The said agreement provides for the manner of how they
are hired and be rehired, the amount of their wages (P118.00 per day), period of
employment (5 days a week, 8 hours a day, training for 1 month, 6 months period)
and the manner and methods of how their works are to be done. Many of their
employments were renewed every six months. Claiming that they should be
considered as regular employees they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
recovery of various benefits.
Labor arbiters decision: complaint is dismissed for lack of merit. The terms of the
contract shall be the law between the parties. Affirmed by the NLRC and denied
motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE:
Does petitioners considered as regular employees?
RULING:
Yes. The petition is meritorious. However, only the employees, who worked for more
than six months and whose contracts were renewed are deemed regular. Hence,
their dismissal from employment was illegal. The stipulations in the employment
contracts indubitably conform with Article 80, however, the application of Article
280 of the Labor Code is justified because of the advent of RA No. 7277 (the Magna
Carta for Disabled Persons) which mandates that a qualified disabled employee
should be given the same terms and conditions of employment as a qualified ablebodied person 27 of the petitioners are considered regular employees by provision
of law regardless of any agreement between the parties as embodied in article280

in relation to article 281 of the Labor Code. The test is whether the former is usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Hence, the
employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such activity, and while
such activity exist. Without a doubt, the task of counting and sorting bills is
necessary and desirable to the business of respondent bank. When the bank
renewed the contract after the lapse of the six-month probationary period, the
employees thereby became regular employees. No employer is allowed to
determine indefinitely the fitness of its employees. Those who have worked for only
6 months and employments were not renewed are not considered regular
employees.