Short answer. Yes. Training conducted entirely by and within the sponsoring firm is one of three schemes the Labor Code expressly allows. The others are training entirely in a public training institution, and a split scheme that begins with trade fundamentals off-site and finishes with work in the sponsoring firm.
What the law says
Apprenticeship conducted entirely by and within the sponsoring firm, establishment or entity
Labor Code, Article 63 — Venue Of Apprenticeship Programs. Read the full provision →
Three permitted venues, and the choice belongs to the sponsor
The article lets an organiser choose from any of the following apprenticeship schemes as the training venue. The first is apprenticeship conducted entirely by and within the sponsoring firm, establishment or entity. The second is apprenticeship entirely within a labour department training centre or other public training institution. The third is a hybrid: initial training in trade fundamentals at a centre or institution, followed by actual work participation inside the sponsoring firm during the final stage. The list is closed in form, but broad enough that most sensible arrangements fit one of the three.
"Entirely by and within" is two requirements
In the in-house scheme the firm supplies both the place and the training. That is what by and within means, and it is the part employers forget. Hosting apprentices on your premises while nobody in particular is responsible for instructing them is not the first scheme; it is production work with an apprenticeship label attached. The obligation to train comes from the apprenticeship agreement itself, and choosing the in-house venue concentrates that obligation on the sponsoring firm rather than diluting it.
Who may organise a programme at all
The article opens the choice to any firm, employer, group or association, industry organization or civic group wishing to organize an apprenticeship program. So the sponsor need not be a single company, and a programme organised by an industry association or a civic group is contemplated by the Code rather than being an irregularity. What the article regulates is where the training happens, not who is entitled to arrange it.
What an apprentice should establish early
Find out which of the three schemes you are actually in, because it tells you who owes you the instruction and where it is meant to happen. If you were told there would be an initial period at a training centre and that period never occurred, the programme has departed from its own design, and that is worth recording at the time. Keep the agreement, any training plan or schedule you were shown, and a note of what you did in a typical week.
What Article 63 settles, and what it leaves open
Article 63 settles where training may happen. It does not settle who may be taken in as an apprentice, what the apprentice must be paid, or whether the occupation is one the law allows to be learned this way. Those questions are answered by the other provisions of the same chapter, and an in-house scheme has to satisfy every one of them. Running the training inside your own plant therefore removes a logistical constraint, not a regulatory one: the program still needs the approval the Labor Code requires before apprentices may be engaged at apprentice rates, the occupation must be a recognised apprenticeable trade, and the agreement with each apprentice must take the form the Code prescribes. A firm that trains on its own premises without those elements is not running an apprenticeship at all — it is employing regular workers, with the wage and security-of-tenure consequences that follow.