2/15/2016

BernardovsNLRC:122917:July12,1999:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

SYLLABI/SYNOPSIS

THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.122917.July12,1999]

MARITESBERNARDO,ELVIRAGODIAMANTE,REBECCAE.DAVID,DAVIDP.PASCUAL,RAQUEL
ESTILLER, ALBERT HALLARE, EDMUND M. CORTEZ, JOSELITO O. AGDON GEORGE P.
LIGUTAN JR., CELSO M. YAZAR, ALEX G. CORPUZ, RONALD M. DELFIN, ROWENA M.
TABAQUERO, CORAZON C. DELOS REYES, ROBERT G. NOORA, MILAGROS O. LEQUIGAN,
ADRIANA F. TATLONGHARI, IKE CABANDUCOS, COCOY NOBELLO, DORENDA
CANTIMBUHAN, ROBERT MARCELO, LILIBETH Q. MARMOLEJO, JOSE E. SALES, ISABEL
MAMAUAG, VIOLETA G. MONTES, ALBINO TECSON, MELODY V. GRUELA, BERNADETH D.
AGERO, CYNTHIA DE VERA, LANI R. CORTEZ, MA. ISABEL B. CONCEPCION, DINDO
VALERIO, ZENAIDA MATA, ARIEL DEL PILAR, MARGARET CECILIA CANOZA, THELMA
SEBASTIAN, MA. JEANETTE CERVANTES, JEANNIE RAMIL, ROZAIDA PASCUAL, PINKY
BALOLOA,ELIZABETHVENTURA,GRACES.PARDO&RICOTIMOSA,petitionersvs.NATIONAL
LABORRELATIONSCOMMISSION&FAREASTBANKANDTRUSTCOMPANY,respondents.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:

The Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that qualified disabled persons be granted the same terms and conditions of
employment as qualified ablebodied employees.Once they have attained the status of regular workers, they should be accorded all the
benefits granted by law, notwithstanding written or verbal contracts to the contrary. This treatment is rooted not merely on charity or
accommodation,butonjusticeforall.
TheCase

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/122917.htm

1/14

2/15/2016

BernardovsNLRC:122917:July12,1999:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

Challenged in the Petition for Certiorari[1] before us is the June 20, 1995 Decision[2] of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC),[3] which affirmed the August, 22 1994 ruling of Labor Arbiter Cornelio L. Linsangan.The labor arbiters Decision disposed as
follows:[4]
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrendereddismissingtheabovementionedcomplaintforlackofmerit.
AlsoassailedistheAugust4,1995Resolution[5]oftheNLRC,whichdeniedtheMotionforReconsideration.
TheFacts
ThefactsweresummarizedbytheNLRCinthiswise:[6]
Complainantsnumbering43(p.176,Records)aredeafmuteswhowerehiredonvariousperiodsfrom1988to1993byrespondentFarEast
BankandTrustCo.asMoneySortersandCountersthroughauniformlywordedagreementcalledEmploymentContractforHandicapped
Workers.(pp.68&69,Records)Thefulltextofsaidagreementisquotedbelow:
EMPLOYMENTCONTRACTFORHANDICAPPEDWORKERS
ThisContract,enteredintobyandbetween:
FAREASTBANKANDTRUSTCOMPANY,auniversalbankingcorporationdulyorganizedandexistingunderandbyvirtueofthelaws
ofthePhilippines,withbusinessaddressatFEBTCBuilding,Muralla,Intramuros,Manila,representedhereinbyitsAssistantVice
President,MR.FLORENDOG.MARANAN,(hereinafterreferredtoastheBANK)
and
________________,________________yearsold,oflegalage,_____________,andresidingat__________________(hereinafter
referredtoasthe(EMPLOYEE).
WITNESSETH:That
WHEREAS,theBANK,cognizantofitssocialresponsibility,realizesthatthereisaneedtoprovidedisabledandhandicappedpersons
gainfulemploymentandopportunitiestorealizetheirpotentials,uplifttheirsocioeconomicwellbeingandwelfareandmakethem
productive,selfreliantandusefulcitizenstoenablethemtofullyintegrateinthemainstreamofsociety
WHEREAS,therearecertainpositionsintheBANKwhichmaybefilledupbydisabledandhandicappedpersons,particularlydeafmutes,
andtheBANKha[s]beenapproachedbysomecivicmindedcitizensandauthorizedgovernmentagencies[regarding]thepossibilityof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/122917.htm

2/14

2/15/2016

BernardovsNLRC:122917:July12,1999:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

hiringhandicappedworkersforthesepositions
WHEREAS,theEMPLOYEEisoneofthosehandicappedworkerswho[were]recommendedforpossibleemploymentwiththeBANK
NOW,THEREFORE,forandinconsiderationoftheforegoingpremisesandincompliancewithArticle80oftheLaborCodeofthe
Philippinesasamended,theBANKandtheEMPLOYEEhaveenteredintothisEmploymentContractasfollows:
1.TheBANKagreestoemployandtraintheEMPLOYEE,andtheEMPLOYEEagreestodiligentlyandfaithfullyworkwiththeBANK,as
MoneySorterandCounter.
2.TheEMPLOYEEshallperformamongothers,thefollowingdutiesandresponsibilities:
iSortoutbillsaccordingtocolor
ii.Counteachdenominationperhundred,eithermanuallyorwiththeaidofacountingmachine
iii.Wrapandlabelbillsperhundred
iv.Putthewrappedbillsintobundlesand
v.Submitbundledbillstothebanktellerforverification.
3.TheEMPLOYEEshallundergoatrainingperiodofone(1)month,afterwhichtheBANKshalldeterminewhetherornothe/sheshould
beallowedtofinishtheremainingtermofthisContract.
4.TheEMPLOYEEshallbeentitledtoaninitialcompensationofP118.00perday,subjecttoadjustmentinthesolejudgmentofthe
BANK,payableevery15thandendofthemonth.
5.TheregularworkscheduleoftheEMPLOYEEshallbefive(5)daysperweek,fromMondaysthruFridays,ateight(8)hoursaday.The
EMPLOYEEmayberequiredtoperformovertimeworkascircumstancemaywarrant,forwhichovertimeworkhe/she[shall]bepaidan
additionalcompensationof125%ofhisdailyrateifperformedduringordinarydaysand130%ifperformedduringSaturdayor[a]restday.
6.TheEMPLOYEEshalllikewisebeentitledtothefollowingbenefits:
i.Proportionate13thmonthpaybasedonhisbasicdailywage.
ii.Five(5)daysincentiveleave.
iii.SSSpremiumpayment.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/122917.htm

3/14

2/15/2016

BernardovsNLRC:122917:July12,1999:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

7.TheEMPLOYEEbindshimself/herselftoabide[by]andcomplywithalltheBANKRulesandRegulationsandPolicies,andtoconduct
himself/herselfinamannerexpectedofallemployeesoftheBANK.
8.TheEMPLOYEEacknowledgesthefactthathe/shehadbeenemployedunderaspecialemploymentprogramoftheBANK,forwhich
reasonthestandardhiringrequirementsoftheBANKwerenotappliedinhis/hercase.Consequently,theEMPLOYEEacknowledgesand
acceptsthefactthatthetermsandconditionsoftheemploymentgenerallyobservedbytheBANKwithrespecttotheBANKsregular
employeearenotapplicabletotheEMPLOYEE,andthattherefore,thetermsandconditionsoftheEMPLOYEEsemploymentwiththe
BANKshallbegovernedsolelyandexclusivelybythisContractandbytheapplicablerulesandregulationsthattheDepartmentofLabor
andEmploymentmayissueinconnectionwiththeemploymentofdisabledandhandicappedworkers.Morespecifically,theEMPLOYEE
herebyacknowledgesthattheprovisionsofBookSixoftheLaborCodeofthePhilippinesasamended,particularlyonregulationof
employmentandseparationpayarenotapplicabletohim/her.
9.TheEmploymentContractshallbeforaperiodofsix(6)monthsorfrom____to____unlessearlierterminatedbytheBANKforany
justorreasonablecause.AnycontinuationorextensionofthisContractshallbeinwritingandthereforethisContractwillautomatically
expireattheendofitstermsunlessrenewedinwritingbytheBANK.
INWITNESSWHEREOF,theparties,havehereuntoaffixedtheirsignature[s]this____dayof_________________,____________at
Intramuros,Manila,Philippines.
In1988,two(2)deafmuteswerehiredunderthisAgreementin1989anothertwo(2)in1990,nineteen(19)in1991six(6)in1992,six
(6)andin1993,twentyone(21).Theiremployment[s]wererenewedeverysixmonthssuchthatbythetimethiscasearose,therewere
fiftysix(56)deafmuteswhowereemployedbyrespondentunderthesaidemploymentagreement.ThelastonewasThelmaMalindoywho
wasemployedin1992andwhosecontractexpiredonJuly1993.
xxxxxxxxx
Disclaimingthatcomplainantswereregularemployees,respondentFarEastBankandTrustCompanymaintainedthatcomplainantswho
areaspecialclassofworkersthehearingimpairedemployeeswerehiredtemporarilyunder[a]specialemploymentarrangementwhichwas
aresultofoverturesmadebysomecivicandpoliticalpersonalitiestotherespondentBankthatcomplainant[s]werehiredduetopakiusap
whichmustbeconsideredinthelightofthecontextoftherespondentBankscorporatephilosophyaswellasitscareerandworking
environmentwhichistomaintainandstrengthenacorpsofprofessionalstrainedandqualifiedofficersandregularemployeeswhoare
baccalaureatedegreeholdersfromexcellentschoolswhichisanunbendingpolicyinthehiringofregularemployeesthatinadditiontothis,
trainingcontinuessothattheregularemployeegrowsinthecorporateladderthattheideaofhiringhandicappedworkerswasacceptableto
themonlyonaspecialarrangementbasisthatitadoptedthespecialprogramtohelptideoveragroupofhandicappedworkerssuchasdeaf
muteslikethecomplainantswhocoulddomanualworkfortherespondentBankthatthetaskofcountingandsortingofbillswhichwas
beingperformedbytellerscouldbeassignedtodeafmutesthatthecountingandsortingofmoneyaretelleringworkswhichwerealways
logicallyandnaturallypartandparcelofthetellersnormalfunctionsthatfromthebeginningtherehavebeennoseparateitemsinthe
respondentBankplantillaforsortersorcountersthatthetellersthemselvesalreadydidthesortingandcountingchoreasaregularfeature
andintegralpartoftheirduties(p.97,Records)thatthroughthepakiusapofArturoBorjal,thetellerswererelievedofthistaskofcounting
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/122917.htm

4/14

2/15/2016

BernardovsNLRC:122917:July12,1999:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

andsortingbillsinfavorofdeafmuteswithoutcreatingnewpositionsasthereisnopositioneitherintherespondentorinanyotherbankin
thePhilippineswhichdealswithpurelycountingandsortingofbillsinbankingoperations.
Petitionersspecifiedwheneachofthemwashiredanddismissed,viz:[7]
NAMEOFPETITIONERWORKPLACEDateHiredDateDismissed
1.MARITESBERNARDOIntramuros12NOV9017NOV93
2.ELVIRAGODIAMANTEIntramuros24JAN9011JAN94
3.REBECCAE.DAVIDIntramuros16APR9023OCT93
4.DAVIDP.PASCUALBelAir15OCT8821NOV94
5.RAQUELESTILLERIntramuros2JUL924JAN94
6.ALBERTHALLAREWest4JAN919JAN94
7.EDMUNDM.CORTEZBelAir15JAN913DEC93
8.JOSELITOO.AGDONIntramuros5NOV9017NOV93
9.GEORGEP.LIGUTAN,JR.Intramuros6SEPT8919JAN94
10.CELSOM.YAZARIntramuros8FEB938AUG93
11.ALEXG.CORPUZIntramuros15FEB9315AUG93
12.RONALDM.DELFINIntramuros22FEB9322AUG93
13.ROWENAM.TABAQUEROIntramuros22FEB9322AUG93
14.CORAZONC.DELOSREYESIntramuros8FEB938AUG93
15.ROBERTG.NOORAIntramuros15FEB9315AUG93
16.MILAGROSO.LEQUIGANIntramuros1FEB931AUG93
17.ADRIANAF.TATLONGHARIIntramuros22JAN9322JUL93
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/122917.htm

5/14

2/15/2016

BernardovsNLRC:122917:July12,1999:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

18.IKECABANDUCOSIntramuros24FEB9324AUG93
19.COCOYNOBELLOIntramuros22FEB9322AUG93
20.DORENDACATIMBUHANIntramuros15FEB9315AUG93
21.ROBERTMARCELOWest31JUL93[8]1AUG93
22.LILIBETHQ.MARMOLEJOWest15JUN9021NOV93
23.JOSEE.SALESWest6AUG9212OCT93
24.ISABELMAMAUAGWest8MAY9210NOV93
25.VIOLETAG.MONTESIntramuros2FEB9015JAN94
26.ALBINOTECSONIntramuros7NOV9110NOV93
27.MELODYV.GRUELAWest28OCT913NOV93
28.BERNADETHD.AGEROWest19DEC9027DEC93
29.CYNTHIADEVERABelAir26JUN903DEC93
30.LANIR.CORTEZBelAir15OCT8810DEC93
31.MA.ISABELB.CONCEPCIONWest6SEPT906FEB94
32.DINDOVALERIOIntramuros30MAY9330NOV93
33.ZENAIDAMATAIntramuros10FEB9310AUG93
34.ARIELDELPILARIntramuros24FEB9324AUG93
35.MARGARETCECILIACANOZAIntramuros27JUL904FEB94
36.THELMASEBASTIANIntramuros12NOV9017NOV93
37.MA.JEANETTECERVANTESWest6JUN927DEC93
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/122917.htm

6/14

2/15/2016

BernardovsNLRC:122917:July12,1999:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

38.JEANNIERAMILIntramuros23APR9012OCT93
39.ROZAIDAPASCUALBelAir20APR8929OCT93
40.PINKYBALOLOAWest3JUN912DEC93
41.ELIZABETHVENTURAWest12MAR90FEB94[SIC]
42.GRACES.PARDOWest4APR9013MAR94
43.RICOTIMOSAIntramuros28APR9328OCT93
Asearliernoted,thelaborarbiterand,onappeal,theNLRCruledagainsthereinpetitioners.Hence,thisrecoursetothisCourt.[9]
TheRulingoftheNLRC
InaffirmingtherulingofthelaborarbiterthathereinpetitionerscouldnotbedeemedregularemployeesunderArticle280oftheLabor
Code,asamended,RespondentCommissionratiocinatedasfollows:
WeagreethatArt.280isnotcontrollingherein.Wegiveduecredencetotheconclusionthatcomplainantswerehiredasanaccommodation
to[the]recommendationofcivicorientedpersonalitieswhoseemployment[s]werecoveredbyxxxEmploymentContract[s]withspecial
provisionsondurationofcontractasspecifiedunderArt.80.Hence,ascorrectlyheldbytheLaborArbiteraquo,thetermsofthecontract
shallbethelawbetweentheparties.[10]
The NLRC also declared that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons was not applicable, considering the prevailing
circumstances/milieuofthecase.
Issues
IntheirMemorandum,petitionerscitethefollowinggroundsinsupportoftheircause:
I.TheHonorableCommissioncommittedgraveabuseofdiscretioninholdingthatthepetitionersmoneysortersandcountersworkingina
bankwerenotregularemployees.
II.TheHonorableCommissioncommittedgraveabuseofdiscretioninholdingthattheemploymentcontractssignedandrenewedbythe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/122917.htm

7/14

2/15/2016

BernardovsNLRC:122917:July12,1999:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

petitionerswhichprovideforaperiodofsix(6)monthswerevalid.
III.TheHonorableCommissioncommittedgraveabuseofdiscretioninnotapplyingtheprovisionsoftheMagnaCartafortheDisabled
(RepublicActNo.7277),onproscriptionagainstdiscriminationagainstdisabledpersons.[11]
Inthemain,theCourtwillresolvewhetherpetitionershavebecomeregularemployees.
ThisCourtsRuling
Thepetitionismeritorious.However,onlytheemployees,whoworkedformorethansixmonthsandwhosecontractswererenewedare
deemedregular.Hence,theirdismissalfromemploymentwasillegal.
PreliminaryMatter:ProprietyofCertiorari
RespondentFarEastBankandTrustCompanyarguesthatareviewofthefindingsoffactsoftheNLRCisnotallowedinapetitionfor
certiorari. Specifically, it maintains that the Court cannot pass upon the findings of public respondents that petitioners were not regular
employees.
True,theCourt,asarule,doesnotreviewthefactualfindingsofpublicrespondentsinacertiorariproceeding.Inresolvingwhether
the petitioners have become regular employees, we shall not change the facts found by the public respondent. Our task is merely to
determinewhethertheNLRCcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretioninapplyingthelawtotheestablishedfacts,asabovequotedfromthe
assailedDecision.
MainIssue:ArePetitionersRegularEmployees?
Petitionersmaintainthattheyshouldbeconsideredregularemployees,becausetheirtaskasmoneysortersandcounterswasnecessary
anddesirabletothebusinessofrespondentbank.TheyfurtherallegethattheircontractsservedmerelytoprecludetheapplicationofArticle
280andtobarthemfrombecomingregularemployees.
Private respondent, on the other hand, submits that petitioners were hired only as special workers and should not in any way be
consideredaspartoftheregularcomplementoftheBank.[12]Rather,theywerespecialworkersunderArticle80oftheLaborCode.Private
respondentcontendsthatitneversolicitedtheservicesofpetitioners,whoseemploymentwasmerelyanaccommodationinresponsetothe
requestsofgovernmentofficialsandcivicmindedcitizens.Theyweretoldfromthestart,withtheassistanceofgovernmentrepresentatives,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/122917.htm

8/14

2/15/2016

BernardovsNLRC:122917:July12,1999:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

thattheycouldnotbecomeregularemployeesbecausetherewerenoplantillapositionsformoneysorters,whosetaskusedtobeperformed
bytellers.Theircontractswererenewedseveraltimes,notbecauseofneedbutmerelyforhumanitarianreasons.Respondentsubmitsthatas
ofthepresent,thespecialpositionthatwascreatedforthepetitionersnolongerexist[s]inprivaterespondent[bank],afterthelatterhad
decidednottorenewanymoretheirspecialemploymentcontracts.
Attheoutset,letitbeknownthatthisCourtappreciatesthenobilityofprivaterespondentsefforttoprovideemploymenttophysically
impairedindividualsandtomakethemmoreproductivemembersofsociety.However,wecannotallowittoeludethelegalconsequences
ofthateffort,simplybecauseitnowdeemstheiremploymentirrelevant.Thefacts,viewedinlightoftheLaborCodeandtheMagnaCarta
forDisabledPersons,indubitablyshowthatthepetitioners,exceptsixteenofthem,shouldbedeemedregularemployees.Assuch,theyhave
acquiredlegalrightsthatthisCourtisdutyboundtoprotectanduphold,notasamatterofcompassionbutasaconsequenceoflawand
justice.
The uniform employment contracts of the petitioners stipulated that they shall be trained for a period of one month, after which the
employershalldeterminewhetherornottheyshouldbeallowedtofinishthe6monthtermofthecontract.Furthermore,theemployermay
terminate the contract at any time for a just and reasonable cause. Unless renewed in writing by the employer, the contract shall
automaticallyexpireattheendoftheterm.
According to private respondent, the employment contracts were prepared in accordance with Article 80 of the Labor Code, which
provides:
ART.80.Employmentagreement.Anyemployerwhoemployshandicappedworkersshallenterintoanemploymentagreementwiththem,
whichagreementshallinclude:
(a)Thenamesandaddressesofthehandicappedworkerstobeemployed
(b)Theratetobepaidthehandicappedworkerswhichshallbenotlessthanseventyfive(75%)percentoftheapplicablelegalminimum
wage
(c)Thedurationofemploymentperiodand
(d)Theworktobeperformedbyhandicappedworkers.
TheemploymentagreementshallbesubjecttoinspectionbytheSecretaryofLabororhisdulyauthorizedrepresentatives.
Thestipulationsintheemploymentcontractsindubitablyconformwiththeaforecitedprovision.Succeedingeventsandtheenactment
ofRANo.7277(theMagnaCartaforDisabledPersons),[13]however,justifytheapplicationofArticle280oftheLaborCode.
Respondentbankenteredintotheaforesaidcontractwithatotalof56handicappedworkersandrenewedthecontractsof37ofthem.In
fact,twoofthemworkedfrom1988to1993.Verily,therenewalofthecontractsofthehandicappedworkersandthehiringofothersleadto
the conclusion that their tasks were beneficial and necessary to the bank. More important, these facts show that they were qualified to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/122917.htm

9/14

2/15/2016

BernardovsNLRC:122917:July12,1999:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

performtheresponsibilitiesoftheirpositions.Inotherwords,theirdisabilitydidnotrenderthemunqualifiedorunfitforthetasksassigned
tothem.
Inthislight,theMagnaCartaforDisabledPersonsmandatesthataqualifieddisabledemployeeshouldbegiventhesametermsand
conditionsofemploymentasaqualifiedablebodiedperson.Section5oftheMagnaCartaprovides:
Section5.EqualOpportunityforEmployment.Nodisabledpersonshallbedeniedaccesstoopportunitiesforsuitableemployment.A
qualifieddisabledemployeeshallbesubjecttothesametermsandconditionsofemploymentandthesamecompensation,privileges,
benefits,fringebenefits,incentivesorallowancesasaqualifiedablebodiedperson.
ThefactthattheemployeeswerequalifieddisabledpersonsnecessarilyremovestheemploymentcontractsfromtheambitofArticle
80.SincetheMagnaCartaaccordsthemtherightsofqualifiedablebodiedpersons,theyarethuscoveredbyArticle280oftheLaborCode,
whichprovides:
ART.280.RegularandCasualEmployment.Theprovisionsofwrittenagreementtothecontrarynotwithstandingandregardlessofthe
oralagreementoftheparties,anemploymentshallbedeemedtoberegularwheretheemployeehasbeenengagedtoperformactivities
whichareusuallynecessaryordesirableintheusualbusinessortradeoftheemployer,exceptwheretheemploymenthasbeenfixedfora
specificprojectorundertakingthecompletionorterminationofwhichhasbeendeterminedatthetimeoftheengagementoftheemployee
orwheretheworkorservicestobeperformedisseasonalinnatureandtheemploymentisforthedurationoftheseason.
Anemploymentshallbedeemedtobecasualifitisnotcoveredbytheprecedingparagraph:Provided,That,anyemployeewhohas
renderedatleastoneyearofservice,whethersuchserviceiscontinuousorbroken,shallbeconsideredasregularemployeewithrespectto
theactivityinwhichheisemployedandhisemploymentshallcontinuewhilesuchactivityexists.
ThetestofwhetheranemployeeisregularwaslaiddowninDeLeonv.NLRC,[14]inwhichthisCourtheld:
Theprimarystandard,therefore,ofdeterminingregularemploymentisthereasonableconnectionbetweentheparticularactivityperformed
bytheemployeeinrelationtotheusualtradeorbusinessoftheemployer.Thetestiswhethertheformerisusuallynecessaryordesirablein
theusualbusinessortradeoftheemployer.Theconnectioncanbedeterminedbyconsideringthenatureoftheworkperformedandits
relationtotheschemeoftheparticularbusinessortradeinitsentirety.Alsoiftheemployeehasbeenperformingthejobforatleastone
year,eveniftheperformanceisnotcontinuousandmerelyintermittent,thelawdeemsrepeatedandcontinuingneedforitsperformanceas
sufficientevidenceofthenecessityifnotindispensabilityofthatactivitytothebusiness.Hence,theemploymentisconsideredregular,but
onlywithrespecttosuchactivity,andwhilesuchactivityexists.
Withoutadoubt,thetaskofcountingandsortingbillsisnecessaryanddesirabletothebusinessofrespondentbank.Withtheexception
of sixteen of them, petitioners performed these tasks for more than six months. Thus, the following twentyseven petitioners should be
deemedregularemployees:MaritesBernardo,ElviraGoDiamante,RebeccaE.David,DavidP.Pascual,RaquelEstiller,AlbertHallare,
EdmundM.Cortez,JoselitoO.Agdon,GeorgeP.LigutanJr.,LilibethQ.Marmolejo,JoseE.Sales,IsabelMamauag,VioletaG.Montes,
Albino Tecson, Melody V. Gruela, Bernadeth D. Agero, Cynthia de Vera, Lani R. Cortez, Ma. Isabel B. Concepcion, Margaret Cecilia
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/122917.htm

10/14

2/15/2016

BernardovsNLRC:122917:July12,1999:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

Canoza,ThelmaSebastian,Ma.JeanetteCervantes,JeannieRamil,RozaidaPascual,PinkyBaloloa,ElizabethVenturaandGraceS.Pardo.
AsheldbytheCourt,Articles280and281oftheLaborCodeputanendtotheperniciouspracticeofmakingpermanentcasualsofour
lowly employees by the simple expedient of extending to them probationary appointments, ad infinitum.[15] The contract signed by
petitioners is akin to a probationary employment, during which the bank determined the employees fitness for the job. When the bank
renewed the contract after the lapse of the sixmonth probationary period, the employees thereby became regular employees.[16] No
employerisallowedtodetermineindefinitelythefitnessofitsemployees.
Asregularemployees,thetwentysevenpetitionersareentitledtosecurityoftenurethatis,theirservicesmaybeterminatedonlyfora
justorauthorizedcause.Becauserespondentfailedtoshowsuchcause,[17]thesetwentysevenpetitionersaredeemedillegallydismissed
andthereforeentitledtobackwagesandreinstatementwithoutlossofseniorityrightsandotherprivileges.[18]Consideringtheallegationof
respondent that the job of money sorting is no longer available because it has been assigned back to the tellers to whom it originally
belonged,[19]petitionersareherebyawardedseparationpayinlieuofreinstatement.[20]
Because the other sixteen worked only for six months, they are not deemed regular employees and hence not entitled to the same
benefits.
ApplicabilityoftheBrentRuling
Respondent bank, citing Brent School v. Zamora[21]in which the Court upheld the validity of an employment contract with a fixed
term,arguesthatthepartiesenteredintothecontractonequalfooting.Itaddsthatthepetitionershadinfactanadvantage,becausethey
werebackedbythenDSWDSecretaryMitaPardodeTaveraandRepresentativeArturoBorjal.
Wearenotpersuaded.Thetermlimitinthecontractwaspremisedonthefactthatthepetitionersweredisabled,andthatthebankhad
to determine their fitness for the position.Indeed, its validity is based on Article 80 of the Labor Code.But as noted earlier, petitioners
provedthemselvestobequalifieddisabledpersonswho,undertheMagnaCartaforDisabledPersons,areentitledtotermsandconditionsof
employment enjoyed by qualified ablebodied individuals hence, Article 80 does not apply because petitioners are qualified for their
positions.Thevalidationofthelimitimposedontheircontracts,imposedbyreasonoftheirdisability,wasaglaringinstanceofthevery
mischiefsoughttobeaddressedbythenewlaw.
Moreover,itmustbeemphasizedthatacontractofemploymentisimpressedwithpublicinterest.[22]Provisionsofapplicablestatutes
aredeemedwrittenintothecontract,andthepartiesarenotatlibertytoinsulatethemselvesandtheirrelationshipsfromtheimpactoflabor
lawsandregulationsbysimplycontractingwitheachother.[23]Clearly,theagreementofthepartiesregardingtheperiodofemployment
cannot prevail over the provisions of the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, which mandate that petitioners must be treated as qualified
ablebodiedemployees.
Respondents reason for terminating the employment of petitioners is instructive. Because the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)
requiredthatcashinthebankbeturnedovertotheBSPduringbusinesshoursfrom8:00a.m.to5:00p.m.,respondentresortedtonighttime
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/122917.htm

11/14

2/15/2016

BernardovsNLRC:122917:July12,1999:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

sortingandcountingofmoney.Thus,itreasonsthatthistaskcouldnotbedonebydeafmutesbecauseoftheirphysicallimitationsasitis
veryriskyforthemtotravelatnight.[24]Wefindnobasisforthisargument.Travellingatnightinvolvesriskstohandicappedandable
bodiedpersonsalike.Thisexcusecannotjustifytheterminationoftheiremployment.
OtherGroundsCitedbyRespondent
Respondentarguesthatpetitionersweremerelyaccommodatedemployees.Thisfactdoesnotchangethenatureoftheiremployment.
Asearliernoted,anemployeeisregularbecauseofthenatureofworkandthelengthofservice,notbecauseofthemodeoreventhereason
forhiringthem.
Equallyunavailingareprivaterespondentsargumentsthatitdidnotgooutofitswaytorecruitpetitioners,andthatitsplantilladidnot
containtheirpositions.InL.T.Datuv.NLRC,[25]theCourtheldthatthedeterminationofwhetheremploymentiscasualorregulardoesnot
dependonthewillorwordoftheemployer,andtheprocedureofhiringxxxbutonthenatureoftheactivitiesperformedbytheemployee,
andtosomeextent,thelengthofperformanceanditscontinuedexistence.
Privaterespondentarguesthatthepetitionerswereinformedfromthestartthattheycouldnotbecomeregularemployees.Infact,the
bankadds,theyagreedwiththestipulationinthecontractregardingthispoint.Still,wearenotpersuaded.Thewellsettledruleisthatthe
character of employment is determined not by stipulations in the contract, but by the nature of the work performed.[26] Otherwise, no
employeecanbecomeregularbythesimpleexpedientofincorporatingthisconditioninthecontractofemployment.
Inthislight,weiterateourrulinginRomaresv.NLRC:[27]
Article280wasemplacedinourstatutebookstopreventthecircumventionoftheemployeesrighttobesecureinhistenureby
indiscriminatelyandcompletelyrulingoutallwrittenandoralagreementsinconsistentwiththeconceptofregularemploymentdefined
therein.Whereanemployeehasbeenengagedtoperformactivitieswhichareusuallynecessaryordesirableintheusualbusinessofthe
employer,suchemployeeisdeemedaregularemployeeandisentitledtosecurityoftenurenotwithstandingthecontraryprovisionsofhis
contractofemployment.
xxxxxxxxx
Atthisjuncture,theleadingcaseofBrentSchool,Inc.v.Zamoraprovesinstructive.Asreaffirmedinsubsequentcases,thisCourthas
upheldthelegalityoffixedtermemployment.Itruledthatthedecisivedeterminantintermemploymentshouldnotbetheactivitiesthatthe
employeeiscalledupontoperformbutthedaycertainagreeduponthepartiesforthecommencementandterminationoftheiremployment
relationship.ButthisCourtwentontosaythatwherefromthecircumstancesitisapparentthattheperiodshavebeenimposedtopreclude
acquisitionoftenurialsecuritybytheemployee,theyshouldbestruckdownordisregardedascontrarytopublicpolicyandmorals.
InrenderingthisDecision,theCourtemphasizesnotonlytheconstitutionalbiasinfavoroftheworkingclass,butalsotheconcernof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/122917.htm

12/14

2/15/2016

BernardovsNLRC:122917:July12,1999:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

the State for the plight of the disabled. The noble objectives of Magna Carta for Disabled Persons are not based merely on charity or
accommodation,butonjusticeandtheequaltreatmentofqualifiedpersons,disabledornot.Inthepresentcase,thehandicapofpetitioners
(deafmutes)isnotahindrancetotheirwork.Theeloquentproofofthisstatementistherepeatedrenewaloftheiremploymentcontracts.
Whythenshouldtheybedismissed,simplybecausetheyarephysicallyimpaired?TheCourtbelieves,that,aftershowingtheirfitnessfor
theworkassignedtothem,theyshouldbetreatedandgrantedthesamerightslikeanyotherregularemployees.
Inthislight,wenotetheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralsprayerjoiningthepetitionerscause.[28]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The June 20, 1995 Decision and the August 4, 1995
ResolutionoftheNLRCareREVERSEDandSETASIDE.RespondentFarEastBankandTrustCompanyisherebyORDEREDtopayback
wagesandseparationpaytoeachofthefollowingtwentyseven(27)petitioners,namely,MaritesBernardo,ElviraGoDiamante,Rebecca
E. David, David P. Pascual, Raquel Estiller, Albert Hallare, Edmund M. Cortez, Joselito O. Agdon, George P. Ligutan Jr., Lilibeth Q.
Marmolejo,JoseE.Sales,IsabelMamauag,VioletaG.Montes,AlbinoTecson,MelodyV.Gruela,BernadethD.Agero,CynthiadeVera,
LaniR.Cortez,Ma.IsabelB.Concepcion,MargaretCeciliaCanoza,ThelmaSebastian,Ma.JeanetteCervantes,JeannieRamil,Rozaida
Pascual,PinkyBaloloa,ElizabethVenturaandGraceS.Pardo.TheNLRCisherebydirectedtocomputetheexactamountdueeachofsaid
employees,pursuanttoexistinglawsandregulations,withinfifteendaysfromthefinalityofthisDecision.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Romero,(Chairman),Vitug,Purisima,andGonzagaReyes,JJ.,concur.
[1]Rollo,pp.339.
[2]Rollo,pp.4665.
[3]PennedbyPresidingComm.LourdesC.JavierandconcurredinbyComm.JoaquinA.Tanodra.Theothermember,Comm.IreneoB.Bernardo,dissented.
[4]Rollo,p.113.
[5]Rollo,pp.7374.
[6]NLRCDecision,pp.210rollo,pp.4755.
[7]Petition,p.12rollo,p.14.
[8]Thisisatypographicalerroronthepartofthepetitioner,foritisunlikelythattheContractofEmploymentwasterminatedthedayafteritwasexecuted.Infact,
AnnexCofpetitionersPositionPaper,whichwassubmittedbeforethelaborarbiter,showsthatPetitionerRobertMarcelowashiredonJuly31,1992,not1993
(Rollo,p.100.).
[9]ThecasewasdeemedsubmittedforresolutiononDecember1,1998,whentheMemorandumoftheprivaterespondentwasreceivedbytheCourt.Thecasewas
givenduecourseonDecember8,1997.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/122917.htm

13/14

2/15/2016

BernardovsNLRC:122917:July12,1999:J.Panganiban:ThirdDivision

[10]NLRCDecision,p.18rollo,p.63.
[11]PetitionersMemorandum,p.3rollo,p.474.
[12]RespondentsMemorandum,p.10rollo,p.523.
[13]ApprovedonMarch24,1992.
[14]176SCRA615,621,August21,1989,perFernan,CJ.
[15]CENECOv.NLRC,236SCRA108,September1,1994,perPuno,J.
[16]Ibid.Article281,LaborCode.
[17]Articles282to284oftheCode.
[18]Article279oftheLaborCodeasamended.
[19]RespondentsMemorandum,p.16rollo,p.529.
[20]Zaratev.Olegario,263SCRA1,October7,1996.
[21]181SCRA802,February6,1990.
[22]Article1700oftheCivilCodeprovides:Therelationsbetweencapitalandlaborarenotmerelycontractual.Theyaresoimpressedwithpublicinterestthatlabor
contractsmustyieldtothecommongood.xxx.
[23]PakistanAirlinesCorporationv.Ople,190SCRA90,September28,1990,perFeliciano,J.SeealsoServidadv.NLRC,GRNo.128682,March18,1999Villa
v.NLRC,284SCRA105,January14,1998.
[24]RespondentsMemorandum,p.15rollo,p.528.
[25]253SCRA440,450,February9,1996,perKapunan,J.
[26]A.M.Oreta&Co.v.NLRC,176SCRA208,August10,1989.
[27]GRNo.122327,August19,1998,perMartinez,J.
[28]ManifestationoftheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralrollo,pp.354375.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/122917.htm

14/14