Short answer. An occupation is apprenticeable if it requires more than three months of practical training on the job supplemented by related theoretical instruction. That three-month figure is a threshold for what counts as apprenticeable, not a prescribed length of training, and Article 58 sets no maximum of its own.
What the law says
An "apprenticeable occupation" means any trade, form of employment or occupation which requires more than three (3) months of practical training on the job supplemented by related theoretical instruction.
Labor Code, Article 58 — Apprenticeship Terms Defined. Read the full provision →
What the law says
"Apprenticeship agreement" is an employment contract wherein the employer binds himself to train the apprentice and the apprentice in turn accepts the terms of training.
Labor Code, Article 58 — Apprenticeship Terms Defined. Read the full provision →
The definition, and what it requires of the work
The Code puts it this way: An "apprenticeable occupation" means any trade, form of employment or occupation which requires more than three (3) months of practical training on the job supplemented by related theoretical instruction. Two components have to be present in the occupation itself. There is hands-on training in the workplace, and there is related theoretical instruction accompanying it. An occupation learned entirely by watching, with no instructional component, does not answer the definition — and neither does a classroom course with no work attached to it.
What the three months actually measures
This is where the question in most people's minds and the text part company. The three-month figure describes the occupation, not the programme: it asks how much training the trade requires before someone can do it. It is a floor for classification, so work that can be picked up in a few weeks is simply not apprenticeable and cannot be dressed as apprenticeship. What the article does not do is prescribe how long a given apprenticeship must or may run. Anyone citing this provision for a fixed duration is reading it for something it does not say.
An apprentice is an employee with a written contract
The Code defines an apprentice as a worker covered by a written apprenticeship agreement, and defines that agreement plainly: "Apprenticeship agreement" is an employment contract wherein the employer binds himself to train the apprentice and the apprentice in turn accepts the terms of training. The words employment contract are the ones to hold on to. Apprenticeship is a mode of employment, not a category outside it, and the obligation it creates runs in both directions — the employer is bound to train, not merely to occupy the apprentice with work.
How to test an arrangement you are being offered
Ask for the written agreement and read what it commits the employer to teach. Then compare it with the work actually being given: an apprentice performing ordinary production tasks, with no theoretical instruction and no training the employer has bound itself to deliver, is being described as one thing and used as another. Keep the agreement, the training schedule if any, and your own record of what you did each week. That comparison — the document against the daily reality — is what any later assessment of the arrangement turns on.