View full case

MARITES BERNARDO v. NLRC

FACTS:

The case involves 43 deaf-mute employees who were hired by Far East Bank and Trust Co. The employees were hired under an "Employment Contract for Handicapped Workers," wherein the bank agreed to employ and train them as money sorters and counters. The contract provided certain benefits but stated that the terms of employment for regular employees did not apply to them. The contract had a term of six months but could be renewed.

Also, 56 deaf-mutes were hired by the bank under a special arrangement, with employment contracts renewed every six months. The bank argued that the complainants were not regular employees but were accommodated based on recommendations. The bank stated that there were no separate positions for sorting and counting bills in the bank.

The labor arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled against the employees, stating that they were not regular employees according to the Labor Code. The NLRC held that the terms of the employment contract governed the relationship, and the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons did not apply.

The employees then filed a petition arguing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The main issue to be resolved is whether the employees are regular employees. The Court ruled in favor of the employees, stating that those who worked for more than six months and had their contracts renewed were considered regular employees. The Court declared their dismissal from employment illegal.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioners, who are disabled persons employed as money sorters and counters, should be deemed regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code.

  2. Whether the employment contracts signed and renewed by the petitioners, which provide for a period of six months, were valid.

  3. Whether the provisions of the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (Republic Act No. 7277) apply in this case.

RULING:

  1. The petitioners, except for the sixteen who worked only for six months, are deemed regular employees because their tasks were necessary and desirable to the business of respondent bank. As such, their dismissal was illegal, and they are entitled to back wages and separation pay.

  2. The six-month limitation in the employment contracts cannot prevail over the provisions of the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons. Once the petitioners proved themselves qualified for their positions, they should have been entitled to the same terms and conditions as regular employees.

  3. The provisions of the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons apply. Qualified disabled employees should be given the same terms and conditions of employment as qualified able-bodied persons. Thus, this statutory mandate takes precedence over the conditions stipulated in the employment contracts.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Article 280 of the Labor Code: Regular employment is defined by the nature of work and the length of service, not by stipulations in the contract. Activities necessary or desirable to the business of the employer entitle the employee to regular status and security of tenure.

  2. Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (RA No. 7277): Mandates equal employment opportunities for qualified disabled persons, ensuring they receive the same terms, conditions, and benefits as able-bodied employees.

  3. Employment Contracts and Public Policy: Employment contracts, especially those involving terms and tenure, must conform to statutory provisions and cannot override the legal protections afforded to employees.

  4. Concept of Regular Employment: Regular employment cannot be precluded by contractual provisions designed to evade statutory rights. Continuing need for a particular work indicates regular employment status.

  5. Certiorari Review: The Court reviews not just the findings of facts but the application of law to those facts when determining if there was grave abuse of discretion by public respondents.