Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Santos
RAY THOMAS,
Complainant,
NLRC RAB NCR
- Versus - CASE NO. NCR-
X CORPORATION.
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------x
1. Ray Thomas and X Corp. entered an apprenticeship agreement for six months.
2. Considering the urgent need of the company and Ray Thomas being an excellent
student and worker, the company immediately required Ray Thomas to start working
as an apprentice without prior approval of the apprenticeship agreement by the
DOLE.
3. Six months later, Ray Thomas was verbally informed by X Corp. that his
apprenticeship agreement is already over and bid him good luck to his future
endeavors.
4. Ray Thomas wasted no time in filing a complaint for illegal dismissal, praying or
reinstatement and other statutory benefits.
II. Arguments
5. That the apprenticeship agreement is void for not being registered with the DOLE,
thereby making Ray Thomas a regular employee.
John Dominic T. Buhangin Labor Law Review I Prof. G. Santos
6. That being a regular employee rather than an apprentice, Ray Thomas was illegally
dismissed by X Corp.
III. Discussion
7. According to Nitto Enterprises v. NLRC. G.R. No. 114337, September 29, 1995:
a. Article 57 of the Labor Code provides that the State aims 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." To translate such
objectives into existence, prior approval of the DOLE to any apprenticeship
program has to be secured as a condition sine qua non before any such
apprenticeship agreement can be fully enforced. The role of the DOLE in
apprenticeship programs and agreements cannot be debased.
8. As a regular employee, Ray Thomas six months with X Corp. was in fact his period.
Art. 281 of the Labor Code provides:
9. Having established that Ray Thomas is a regular employee, the act of arbitrarily
dismissing him after six months constitutes illegal dismissal. The case of Pepsi-Cola
Bottling Co., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 127529, December 10, 1998, states:
a. The law requires that the employer must furnish the worker sought to be
dismissed with two (2) 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 (Sec.
13, BP 130; Sec. 2-6 Rule XIV, Book V, Rules and Regulations Implementing
the Labor Code as amended). Failure to comply with the requirements taints
the dismissal with illegality. This procedure is mandatory, in the absence of
which, any judgment reached by management is void and in existent (Tingson,
Jr. vs. NLRC, 185 SCRA 498 [1990]; National Service Corp. vs. NLRC, 168
SCRA 122; Ruffy vs. NLRC. 182 SCRA 365 [1990]).
Notary Public
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2017.
Copy Furnished: