Century Canning Corporation, petitioner

vs.
CA and Gloria C. Palad, respondents
G.R. No. 152894, August 17, 2007
Ponente : Carpio, J.

Facts:
On July 15, 1997, petitioner Century Canning Corporation
hired respondent Palad as “fish cleaner” at petitioner’s factory. The
contracting parties signed the apprenticeship agreement on July
17, 1997. The petitioner submitted its apprenticeship program for
approval to the TESDA on July 25, 1997 and was approved on
September 26, 1997.
On November 22, 1997, respondent received notice of
termination from said company and deemed effective on
November 28, as a consequence of his alleged low performance,
tardiness and absences. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-payment or pro-rated
13th month pay. The Labor Arbiter dismissed said complaint for
lack of merit which was affirmed by the NLRC with modification.
Palad filed for motion for consideration. The CA reversed the ruling
of NLRC. Thus, this petition.

Issue:
WON the respondent was an apprentice.

Ruling:
No. The respondent was not an apprentice.
Under TESDA Act of 1994 (RA 7796), TESDA’s approval of
the apprenticeship program is required before an employer is
allowed to hire apprentice.
In the case at bar, since the apprenticeship agreement was
executed more than two (2) months before the TESDA approved
the apprenticeship program, such agreement was deemed to be
not valid and binding between the parties. Thus, respondent is
hired not as an apprentice but as a regular employee performing
the job of a fish cleaner, which is necessary in the petitioner’s
business as a tuna and sardines factory.
Therefore, respondent Palad was not an apprentice but a
regular employee of said company.