[IV.

CATEGORIES AND CLASSIFICATIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND amended, particularly on regulation of employment and separation pay
WORKERS (DAY THREE) -> H. HANDICAPPED WORKERS] are not applicable to him/her.
49 BERNARDO VS. NLRC & FAR EAST BANK GR NO. 122917, 4. In total, 56 deaf-mutes were hired by the bank and most of their contracts
JULY 12, 1999 | PONENTE, J. were renewed after the initial six months.
5. In 1993, they were all let go through non-renewal of contract.
Petitioner/s: MARITES BERNARDO, ELVIRA GO DIAMANTE, REBECCA E. DAVID, DAVID
6. Respondent’s reason for terminating the employment of petitioners is
P. PASCUAL, RAQUEL ESTILLER, ALBERT HALLARE, EDMUND M. CORTEZ, JOSELITO O.
AGDON, GEORGE P. LIGUTAN, JR., CELSO M. YAZAR, ALEX G. CORPUZ, RONALD M. because the BSP required that cash in the bank be turned over to the BSP
DELFIN, ROWENA M. TABAQUERO, CORAZON C. DELOS REYES, ROBERT G. NOORA, during business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., respondent resorted to
MILAGROS O. LEQUIGAN, ADRIANA F. TATLONGHARI, IKE CABANDUCOS, COCOY nighttime sorting and counting of money. Thus, it reasons that this task
NOBELLO, DORENDA CANTIMBUHAN, ROBERT MARCELO, LILIBETH Q. MARMOLEJO, “could not be done by deaf mutes because of their physical limitations as it is
JOSE E. SALES, ISABEL MAMAUAG, VIOLETA G. MONTES, ALBINO TECSON, MELODY V. very risky for them to travel at night.”
GRUELA, BERNADETH D. AGERO, CYNTHIA DE VERA, LANI R. CORTEZ, MA. ISABEL B.
CONCEPCION, DINDO VALERIO, ZENAIDA MATA, ARIEL DEL PILAR, MARGARET CECILIA 7. The petitioners (all 43 of them) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
CANOZA, THELMA SEBASTIAN, MA. JEANETTE CERVANTES, JEANNIE RAMIL, ROZAIDA maintain that they are regular employees:
PASCUAL, PINKY BALOLOA, ELIZABETH VENTURA, GRACE S. PARDO and RICO TIMOSA a. Their task as money sorters and counters was necessary and
Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and FAR EAST BANK AND desirable to the business of respondent bank.
TRUST COMPANY b. They further allege that their contracts served merely to preclude
the application of Article 280 (now 295) and to bar them from
Doctrine: The fact that the employees were qualified disabled persons necessarily
becoming regular employees
removes the employment contracts from the ambit of Article 80. Since the Magna
8. The bank’s defense:
Carta accords them the rights of qualified able-bodied persons, they are thus covered
by Article 280 of the Labor Code. (regular employees) a. The hiring was but an accommodation hiring – thru the pakiusap of
DSWD and Arturo Borjal (a representative) and they only intended
Facts: to hire the deaf-mutes in a special arrangement:
1. Far East Bank and Trust Co. hired deaf-mutes in varying periods from 1988 i. Usual hires were trained for longer periods, possessed
-1993 as money sorters and counters through a uniformly worded agreement college degrees, etc.
called ‘Employment Contract for Handicapped Workers’. This is in b. The tellers who usually did the counting and sorting of bills were
recognition of their social responsibility and as initiated by some civic- relieved of this task and that the counting and sorting of money are
minded citizens and authorized government agencies regarding the tellering works which were always logically and naturally part and
possibility of hiring handicapped workers for these positions. parcel of the tellers’ normal functions
2. The Contract states that the EMPLOYEE shall undergo a training period of c. from the beginning there have been no separate items in the
one (1) month, after which the BANK shall determine whether or not he/she respondent Bank plantilla for sorters or counters; that the deaf-
should be allowed to finish the remaining term of the Contract (which is six mutes’ contracts have been renewed not due to need but due to
months in total unless earlier terminated by the BANK for any just or humanitarian reasons.
reasonable cause). 9. The LA and NLRC sided with the bank and were hired as an
3. It also contains this clause: accommodation to the recommendation of civic oriented personalities
whose employments were covered by the Employment Contracts with
The EMPLOYEE acknowledges the fact that he/she had been employed special provisions on duration of contract as specified under Art. 80. Hence,
under a special employment program of the BANK, for which reason the the terms of the contract shall be the law between the parties.
standard hiring requirements of the BANK were not applied in his/her 10. The NLRC also declared that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons was not
case. Consequently, the EMPLOYEE acknowledges and accepts the fact applicable, “considering the prevailing circumstances/milieu of the case.”
that the terms and conditions of the employment generally observed by the
BANK with respect to the BANK’s regular employee are not applicable to the Issues/Ruling:
EMPLOYEE, and that therefore, the terms and conditions of the WON the petitioners were regular employees and therefore illegally dismissed – YES,
EMPLOYEE’s employment with the BANK shall be governed solely for those employees who worked for more than 6 months and whose contracts were
and exclusively by this Contract and by the applicable rules and renewed (27 out of the 43 complainants)
regulations that the Department of Labor and Employment may issue in
connection with the employment of disabled and handicapped workers.
More specifically, the EMPLOYEE hereby acknowledges that the
provisions of Book Six of the Labor Code of the Philippines as
Yes, but only the employees, who worked for more than six months and whose And as regular employees, they are entitled to security of tenure- their services may
contracts were renewed are deemed regular. Hence, their dismissal from be terminated only for just or authorized cause –which the respondent bank failed to
employment was illegal. show. Hence, the Court held that the 27 employees were illegally dismissed, entitled
to back pay and reinstatement or separation pay.
The employment contracts were prepared under Art 80. Succeeding events and the
enactment of RA No. 7277 (the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons), however, On applicability of Brent ruling: (validity of fixed term contracts)
justify the application of Article 280 of the Labor Code. The term limit in the contract was premised on the fact that the petitioners were
Out of the total of 56 handicapped workers hired by the bank under the said contract, disabled, and that the bank had to determine their fitness for the position. Its validity
they renewed the contracts of 37 of them. is based on Article 80 of the Labor Code. But as noted earlier, petitioners
proved themselves to be qualified disabled persons who, under the Magna
The renewal of the contracts of the handicapped workers and the hiring of Carta for Disabled Persons, are entitled to terms and conditions of
others lead to the conclusion that their tasks were beneficial and employment enjoyed by qualified able-bodied individuals; hence, Article 80
necessary to the bank. More important, these facts show that they were does not apply because petitioners are qualified for their positions.
qualified to perform the responsibilities of their positions.
A contract of employment is impressed with public interest. Provisions of applicable
The Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that a qualified disabled employee statutes are deemed written into the contract, and the “parties are not at liberty to
should be given the same terms and conditions of employment as a qualified insulate themselves and their relationships from the impact of labor laws and
able-bodied person: regulations by simply contracting with each other. The agreement of the parties
regarding the period of employment cannot prevail over the provisions of the
Section 5. Equal Opportunity for Employment.—No disabled person shall be Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, which mandate that petitioners must be
denied access to opportunities for suitable employment. A qualified disabled treated as qualified able-bodied employees.
employee shall be subject to the same terms and conditions of employment and the
same compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe benefits, incentives, or allowances as On other defenses by respondent:
a qualified able-bodied person. 1. Its reason for terminating the deaf-mute employees (risky travel at night): No
basis for this argument. Travelling at night involves risks to handicapped and
As the employees were qualified disabled persons necessarily removes the able-bodied persons alike. This excuse cannot justify the termination of their
employment contracts from the ambit of Article 80 and the Magna Carta accords them employment.
with the rights of qualified able-bodied persons, they are thus covered by Art. 295 2. Accommodation hiring only: An employee is regular because of the nature of
(previously 280) (regular and casual employment) work and the length of service, not because of the mode or even the reason for hiring
them.
The test of whether an employee is regular was laid down in De Leon v. 3. The bank did not recruit the employees and no plantilla available:
NLRC: as to the reasonable connection test as well as considering an employment L.T. Datu v. NLRC: The Court held that “the determination of whether employment
regular – with respect to such activity – if the employee has been performing the job is casual or regular does not depend on the will or word of the employer, and the
for more than one year. 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
The task of counting and sorting bills is necessary and desirable to the business of existence.”
the bank. Therefore, when the contracts of 27 of the petitioners were renewed, they 4. Contract agreed upon by both parties: the employees knew they could not
should be deemed regular employees: As the Court held: become regular employees: The well-settled rule is that the character of employment
is determined not by stipulations in the contract, but by the nature of the work
The contract signed by petitioners is akin to a probationary employment, performed.
during which the bank determined the employees’ fitness for the job. When Dispositive
the bank renewed the contract after the lapse of the six-month probationary Petition is hereby GRANTED. The June 20, 1995 Decision and the August 4, 1995 Resolution of
period, the employees thereby became regular employees. No employer is 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 the 27 complainants (not all).
allowed to determine indefinitely the fitness of its employees.
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.