Page 1 of 4

PART 2E: Human Resources Development

NITTO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION  April 22, 1994 : Writ of Execution was issued finding merit in Capili’s motion for issuance of
GR No 114337 // September 29, 1995 // First Division writ, ordering that Capili be reinstated to his work and collect the amount of P122, 690.85 as
Justice Kapunan backwages

Topic : Human Resources Development – Allowed Employment; Requirement ISSUES / HOLDING:

Program 1. W/N NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that Capili was not an apprentice
Petitioner : Nitto Enterprises and that no valid cause for termination was presented NO
Respondent : National Labor Relations Commission and Roberto Capili  Art 61: Contents of apprenticeship agreement. — Apprenticeship agreements, including
the main rates of apprentices, shall conform to the rules issued by the Minister of Labor
SUMMARY : Capili was allegedly hired as an apprentice by Nitto Enterprises. and Employment. The period of apprenticeship shall not exceed six months.
Apprenticeship program was however approved after his hiring, hence he Apprenticeship agreements providing for wage rates below the legal minimum wage, which
is considered a regular employee. He caused injury to himself and fellow in no case shall start below 75% per cent of the applicable minimum wage, may be entered
workers, which caused his involuntary resignation, hence a claim for illegal into only in accordance with apprenticeship program duly approved by the Minister of
dismissal. Labor and Employment. The Ministry shall develop standard model programs of
apprenticeship.
FACTS: o While Nitto Enterprises asserts that there was an apprenticeship agreement, the same
 BACKGROUND : was filed on June 7, 1990 even if it was implemented upon signing on May 28, 1990.
o Petitioner : Nitto Enterprises is engaged in the sale of glass and aluminum products o Petitioner did not comply with the requirements of law as it is mandated that
o Respondent : NLRC apprenticeship agreements entered into shall be entered only in accordance with the
o Procedure:Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to annul decision of NLRC apprenticeship program duly approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment
reversing the decision of the LA o Filing of a proposed apprenticeship program is not final approval.
 May 1990 : Hired Roberto Capili as apprentice machinist, molder, and core maker for a period  Art 57: establish a national apprenticeship program through the participation of employers,
of six months from May 28, 1990 – November 28, 1990 with a daily wage rate of P66.75 (75% workers and government and non-government agencies" and "to establish apprenticeship
of minimum wage) standards for the protection of apprentices.
 August 2, 1990 : Capili was handling a piece of glass when he accidentally hit and injured the o There is a need to have approval of agreements prior to implementation
leg of an office secretary; after office hours, Capili entered a workshop not his workstation and o Apprenticeship agreement between Nitto and Capili had no force and effect in the
operated a power press machine, where he injured his left thumb. absence of a valid apprenticeship agreement.
 August 3, 1990 : Capili was asked to resign by management, in a letter detailing what damages  Art 280: Regular and Casual Employment. — The provisions of written agreement to the contrary
he has caused, the total amount spent on his treatment (P1,023.04), and the offer of management notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be
to give him 9 days salary, salary from July 30 to August 4, and management shall assume costs regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in
of removing the stitches from his hand due to the injury, in exchange for his resignation and the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a
affirmation of the facts stated on the letter. specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been
o Capili executed a quitclaim and release in favor of Nitto Enterprises, for the amount determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services
of P1,912.79. to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
 August 6, 1990 : Capili filed before NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of other
monetary benefits An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding
 October 9, 1991 : LA – termination of Capili is valid, claim for money dismissed due to lack of paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
merit; Nitto ordered to pay Capili P500 as financial assistance whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with
o Labor Arbiter Patricio P. Libo-on reasoned that Capili violated the terms of respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while
agreement when he acted with gross negligence resulting to personal injury and fellow such activity exists.
workers, and he also showed he did not have the proper attitude in employment o Assuming that no apprenticeship agreement was in place, hence he should be
particularly the handling of machines without authority and proper training considered a regular employee
 July 26, 1993 : NLRC – reversed decision of LA, directing Nitto Enterprises to reinstate Capili,  As a regular employee, there should be valid grounds for dismissal which is coupled with
ruling that Capili was a regular employee under Art 280 as early as May 28, 1990, who thus due process, substantive and procedural before dismissal, as well as notice and hearing to
enjoyed security of tenure. defend himself together with assistance of counsel.
 January 28, 1994 : LA called for a conference which only Capili attended o Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co, Inc v NLRC: 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

Labor: Part 2E
 Page 2 of 4

particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent Bernardo v. NLRC
notice which informs the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him (Sec. G.R. 122917 – July 12, 1999
13, BP 130; Sec. 2-6 Rule XIV, Book V, Rules and Regulations Implementing the J. xxx
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 judgement Topic: Human Resource Development - Persons with Disability - Employment Rights and Privileges
reached by management is void and in existent (Tingson Jr v NLRC; National Service
Corp v NLRC; Ruffy v NLRC). Petitioners: Bernardo, et al.
 Capili filed a case of illegal dismissal three days after he signed a Quitclaim indicates that Respondents: NLRC & Far East Bank Trust and Company
resignation was not voluntary.
 Petitioner cannot disguise the summary dismissal by orchestrating Capili’s resignation and Case Summary:
execution of Quitclaim and Release. From 1988 to 1993, handicapped workers were employed by Far East Bank (Bank) to be “money
sorters and counters.” According to the Bank, their employments were not to be considered as regular.
RULING: Their employments were under contracts [basically identical contracts, or at least with the same gist], and, being
WHEREFORE, finding no abuse of discretion committed by public respondent National Labor Relations contracts of employment of handicapped workers, the Bank supposed that such contracts would be
Commission, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED. governed by Article 80 of the Labor Code, which is concerned with the employment of “special”
workers. Being under Article 80, the Bank believed that these workers could not have Article 280 be
applied to them, which identifies regular employees. However, with the enactment of R.A. 7277, the
“Magna Carta for Disabled Persons,” on July 23, 1991, all qualified disabled employees were to have
been “subject to the same terms and conditions of employment and the same compensation,
privileges, benefits, fringe benefits, incentives or allowances as a qualified able bodied person”
(emphasis supplied). Given that these disabled employees were qualified (which the Supreme Court
concluded from the fact that their contracts were repeatedly renewed), they had the right to have Article
280 applied to them. By applying Article 280, they should have been [and were, by the SC] considered
eligible for the status of regular employment because they were rendering necessary and desirable work
to the bank (again, concluded from the fact that their contracts were repeatedly renewed), for more
than six months, with their contracts having been renewed for longer employment. However, those
employees who have not worked for six months were not given regular employment status [I assume
their status would then have been casual employment].

Facts:
● 1988 to 1993:
o Multiple (56) handicapped workers were employed by the Bank to be “money sorters
and counters.”
▪ One month probation, six months work duration, renewable.
▪ For all intents and purposes, all the stipulations of the contract would lead
one to believe that these employees were to be treated as casual employees
who would end up becoming regular employees after renewal of contract
after six months.
▪ EXCEPT: that the Bank maintained that they were employing these
handicapped workers, really, more for the sake of helping them out.1

1 Disclaiming that complainants were regular employees, respondent Far East Bank and Trust Company schools which is an unbending policy in the hiring of regular employees; that in addition to this, training
maintained that complainants who are a special class of workers—the hearing impaired employees were continues so that the regular employee grows in the corporate ladder; that the idea of hiring handicapped
hired temporarily under [a] special employment arrangement which was a result of overtures made by some workers was acceptable to them only on a special arrangement basis; that it adopted the special program
civic and political personalities to the respondent Bank; that complainant[s] were hired due to ‘pakiusap’ to help tide over a group of handicapped workers such as deaf-mutes like the complainants who could do
which must be considered in the light of the context of the respondent Bank’s corporate philosophy as manual work for the respondent Bank;...
well as its career and working environment which is to maintain and strengthen a corps of professionals
trained and qualified officers and regular employees who are baccalaureate degree holders from excellent
Labor: Part 2E
 Page 3 of 4

▪ AND EXCEPT: that there was no official employment position in the ● LA:
Bank for “money sorters and counters” anyway, (so it’s not like they were o Ruled against the Petitioners (in favor of the Bank).
actually officially employed in an official position).2
o Of those 56, 43 are herein petitioners. ● NLRC:
o Of those 56, 37 had had their contracts renewed. o Affirmed LA.
o Of those 43, 27 had had their contracts renewed. ▪ We agree that Art. 280 is not controlling herein. We give due credence to
the conclusion that complainants were hired as an accommodation to [the]
● July 23, 1991: recommendation of civic oriented personalities whose employment[s] were
o “Magna Carta for Disabled Persons” was enacted covered by x x x Employment Contract[s] with special provisions on
▪ Sec. 5. Equal Opportunity for Employment.--- duration of contract as specified under Art. 80. Hence, as correctly held by
No disabled persons shall be denied access to opportunities for suitable the Labor Arbiter a quo, the terms of the contract shall be the law between
employment. A qualified disabled employee shall be subject to the same the parties.
terms and conditions of employment and the same compensation, ▪ The Magna Carta for Disabled Persons was not applicable, “considering
privileges, benefits, fringe benefits, incentives or allowances as a qualified the prevailing circumstances/milieu of the case.”
able-bodied person. Five percent (5%) of all casual, emergency and
contractual positions in the Department of Social Welfare and ● H℮nc℮, p℮tition 4 certiorari.
Development; Health; Education, Culture and Sports; and other
government agencies, offices or corporations engaged in social Issues + Held:
development shall be reserved for disabled persons. 1. W/N Petitioners are regular employees. – YES.
o [To put simply] If Section 5 of the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons applies, then
● Petitioners filed complaint of (I’m basing this off of the Disposition) “illegal dismissal.” Article 80 of the Labor Code won’t apply. If Article 80 of the Labor Code wouldn’t
o Being illegally dismissed for no just cause (and no due process), which is necessary for apply, then Article 280 of the Labor Code may apply.
dismissal of regular employees. ● If disabled employee is qualified disabled employee, then he/she shall be
treated as qualified able-bodied person.
● Respondents argued that they weren’t regular employees, under Article 80 of the Labor Code: ● If qualified able-bodied person, the law that would apply to him/her would
o ART. 80. Employment agreement.— not be Article 80 (and therefore, the contract between him/her and his/her
Any employer who employs handicapped workers shall enter into an employment employer) but Article 280, which may provide him/her legal basis to be
agreement with them, which agreement shall include: considered a regular employee.
▪ The names and addresses of the handicapped workers to be employed; ○ Based on the fact that the contracts of 27 of the employees-petitioners were repeatedly
▪ The rate to be paid the handicapped workers which shall be not less than renewed, these employees were qualified to do their job. Given that, Section 5 would
seventy five (75%) per cent of the applicable legal minimum wage; apply. Given Section 5 applying, it was proper to see whether they were regular
▪ The duration of employment period; and employees under Article 280.
▪ The work to be performed by handicapped workers. ■ Given that their tasks were necessary and desirable, and that their contracts
The employment agreement shall be subject to inspection by the Secretary of Labor were renewed after six months, it was proper consider them regular
or his duly authorized representatives. employees.
o Given Article 80, they argued that the law to be applied was supposed to be the
contract, along with the stipulations therein, of the parties. 3 2. W/N illegal dismissal – YES.
o No just cause (check footnote, Ma’am is probably gonna ask).4

2 ...that the task of counting and sorting of bills which was being performed by tellers could be assigned to writing and therefore this Contract will automatically expire at the end of its terms unless renewed in
deaf-mutes; that the counting and sorting of money are tellering works which were always logically and writing by the BANK.
naturally part and parcel of the tellers’ normal functions; that from the beginning there have been no 4 Respondent’s reason for terminating the employment of petitioners is instructive. Because the Bangko

separate items in the respondent Bank plantilla for sorters or counters; that the tellers themselves already Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) required that cash in the bank be turned over to the BSP during business hours
did the sorting and counting chore as a regular feature and integral part of their duties; that through the from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., respondent resorted to nighttime sorting and counting of money. Thus, it
‘pakiusap’ of Arturo Borjal, the tellers were relieved of this task of counting and sorting bills in favor of reasons that this task “could not be done by deaf mutes because of their physical limitations as it is very
deaf-mutes without creating new positions as there is no position either in the respondent or in any other risky for them to travel at night.” We find no basis for this argument. Travelling at night involves risks to
bank in the Philippines which deals with purely counting and sorting of bills in banking operations. handicapped and able-bodied persons alike. This excuse cannot justify the termination of their
3 (9) The Employment Contract shall be for a period of six (6) months or from ____ to ____ unless earlier employment.
terminated by the BANK for any just or reasonable cause. Any continuation or extension of this Contract
shall be in
Labor: Part 2E
 Page 4 of 4

3. W/N any employment, with regard to the fact that position was not stated in the Bank’s plantilla-
-- STILL EMPLOYED.
● In L. T. Datu v. NLRC, the Court held that “the determination of whether
employment is casual or regular does not depend on the will or word of the employer,
and the procedure of hiring x x x but on the nature of the activities performed by the
employee, and to some extent, the length of performance and its continued existence.

Ruling:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The June 20, 1995 Decision and
the August 4, 1995 Resolution of the NLRC are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Far East
Bank and Trust Company is hereby ORDERED to pay back wages and separation pay to each of the
following twenty-seven (27) petitioners, namely, Marites Bernardo, Elvira Go Diamante, Rebecca E.
David, David P. Pascual, Raquel Estiller, Albert Hallare, Edmund M. Cortez, Joselito O. Agdon, George
P. Ligutan Jr., Lilibeth Q. Marmolejo, Jose E. Sales, Isabel Mamauag, Violeta G. Montes, Albino Tecson,
Melody V. Gruela, Bernadeth D. Agero, Cynthia de Vera, Lani R. Cortez, Ma. Isabel B. Concepcion,
Margaret Cecilia Canoza, Thelma Sebastian, Ma. Jeanette Cervantes, Jeannie Ramil, Rozaida Pascual, Pinky
Baloloa, Elizabeth Ventura and Grace S. Pardo. The NLRC is hereby directed to compute the exact amount
due each of said employees, pursuant to existing laws and regulations, within fifteen days from the finality
of this Decision.
No costs.

Labor: Part 2E