BERNARDO vs.

NLRC and FAR EAST BANK

FACTS:

Far East Bank (Respondent) entered into employment contracts with deaf-mutes, who were hired as money sorters
under uniform “Employment Contracts for Handicapped Workers.” Every 6 months, these workers renewed their
employment contracts. The complainants here complain that they were regular employees and that they have been
illegally dismissed.

Respondent argued that complainants were not regular employees, but a special class of workers who were hired
because of political and civic accommodation. And that the Bank’s corporate philosophy does not allow the hiring and
regularizing handicapped workers unless it was on a special arrangement basis. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
respondent bank workers. NLRC affirmed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner workers are regular employees.

HELD:

YES, petitioners are regular employees. The fact that after the expiry of their 6 month contract, respondent bank
renewed their contracts shows that these workers were qualified to perform the responsibilities of their positions.

The Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that a qualified disabled employee should be given the same terms of
employment as a qualified able-bodied person. This being so, petitioners are thus covered by Art. 286 of the Labor Code
which defines regular employment to be that the employee has been engaged to perform activities usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The task of counting and sorting bills is necessary to the
business of respondent bank. Except for sixteen of them, the petitioners performed these tasks for more than six
months. Therefore, the 27 petitioners should be deemed regular employees entitled to security of tenure. Their
services may only be terminated for a just and authorized cause. Because respondents failed to show such cause, these
27 petitioners are deemed illegally dismissed and hence entitled to backwages and separation pay.