Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Century Canning vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152894, August 7, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Matthew Evan Esteves
    9 views1 page
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Century Canning and Gloria Palad regarding her employment status and termination. The key facts are that Palad was hired as a fish cleaner by Century Canning before their apprenticeship program was approved by TESDA. Palad was later terminated without due process. The Court of Appeals ruled that Palad was a regular employee since the apprenticeship agreement was not valid without prior TESDA approval. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, stating that apprenticeship programs must be approved before apprentices can be hired, otherwise the person has the status of a regular employee with rights against illegal dismissal.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    96. Century Canning vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152894, August 7, 2007

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Century Canning and Gloria Palad regarding her employment status and termination. The key facts are that Palad was hired as a fish cleaner by Century Canning before their apprenticeship program was approved by TESDA. Palad was later terminated without due process. The Court of Appeals ruled that Palad was a regular employee since the apprenticeship agreement was not valid without prior TESDA approval. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, stating that apprenticeship programs must be approved before apprentices can be hired, otherwise the person has the status of a regular employee with rights against illegal dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    9 views1 page

    Century Canning vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152894, August 7, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Matthew Evan Esteves
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Century Canning and Gloria Palad regarding her employment status and termination. The key facts are that Palad was hired as a fish cleaner by Century Canning before their apprenticeship program was approved by TESDA. Palad was later terminated without due process. The Court of Appeals ruled that Palad was a regular employee since the apprenticeship agreement was not valid without prior TESDA approval. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, stating that apprenticeship programs must be approved before apprentices can be hired, otherwise the person has the status of a regular employee with rights against illegal dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Century Canning vs.

    Court of Appeals
    [G.R. No. 152894, August 7, 2007]

    Prepared by: Rhein B. Manalaysay


    Topic: Apprenticeship

    FACTS:

    On July 15, 1997, private respondent Gloria C. Palad was hired by petitioner
    corporation as a fish cleaner. Palad signed an Apprenticeship Agreement with petitioner
    on July 17, 1997. On July 25, 1997, petitioner submitted its apprenticeship program to
    TESDA for approval. On September 26, 1997, TESDA approved the apprenticeship
    program.
    On November 15, 1997, a performance evaluation was conducted and Palad got a
    low rating since she scored only 27.75% based on a 100% indicator. As a consequence,
    petitioner issued a termination notice dated November 22, 1997 to Palad to be effective at
    the close of business hours on November 28, 1997.
    Palad filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and non-
    payment of pro-rated 13th month pay for the year 1997.
    The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but ordered the
    payment of last salary and pro-rated 13th month pay. On appeal, NRC affirmed the LA's
    ruling but modified the amount to be paid.
    On appeal to the CA, the appellate court set aside NIRC's ruling. The court held
    that since the apprenticeship agreement was not yet approved by TESDA at the time it
    was entered into, the same was not valid and binding and as such, Palad is considered to
    be a regular employee. Also, the court ruled that Pala was illegally dismissed because
    petitioner did not comply with the twin requirements of notice and hearing.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that Palad was not an apprentice?

    RULING:

    No, The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the CA. The court ruled that under
    the Labor Code, an apprenticeship program should first be approved before an apprentice
    may be hired, otherwise, the person hired will be considered as a regular emplovee.
    Prior approval by the TESDA of the proposed apprenticeship program is a condition sine
    qua non before an apprenticeship agreement can be validly entered into. Since Palad
    cannot be considered as an apprentice, she is deemed a regular employee for the job of a
    fish cleaner is necessary in petitioner's business as a tuna and sardine's factory.

    You might also like