Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Human Resources Cases
Human Resources Cases
As 15-Jan-94
earlier noted, the labor arbiter and,
HALLARE West 25. VIOLETA G. MONTES
4-Jan-91 9-Jan-94 Intramuros 2-Feb-90
on appeal, the NLRC ruled against
D M. CORTEZ Bel-Air26. ALBINO15-Jan-91
TECSON 3-Dec-93 Intramuros 7-Nov-91 10-Nov-93
herein petitioners. Hence, this
recourse to this Court. 9
O O. AGDON 27. MELODY
Intramuros B. GRUELA
5-Nov-90 17-Nov-93 West 28-Oct-91 3-Nov-93
The Ruling of the NLRC
E P. LIGUTAN JR. 28. BERNADETH
Intramuros D. AGERO 19-Jan-94 West
6-Sep-89 19-Dec-90 27-Dec-93
In affirming the ruling of the labor
29. CYNTHIA DE VERA arbiter that herein petitioners could
M. YAZAR Intramuros 8-Feb-93 8-Aug-93 Bel-Air 26-Jun-90 3-Dec-93
not be deemed regular employees
30. LANI R.15-Feb-93
CORTEZ under Article 280 of the Labor Code,
G. CORPUZ Intramuros 15-Aug-93 Bel-Air 15-Oct-88 10-Dec-93
as amended, Respondent Commission II. The Honorable Commission public respondent that petitioners
ratiocinated as follows: committed grave abuse of discretion were not regular employees.
in holding that the employment
We agree that Art. 280 is not True, the Court, as a rule, does not
contracts signed and renewed by the
controlling herein. We give due review the factual findings of public
petitioners — which provide for a
credence to the conclusion that respondents in
period of six (6) months — were valid.
complainants were hired as an a certiorari proceeding. In resolving
accommodation to [the] III. The Honorable Commission whether the petitioners have become
recommendation of civic oriented committed grave abuse of discretion regular employees, we shall not
personalities whose employment[s] in not applying the provisions of the change the facts found by the public
were covered by . . . Employment Magna Carta for the Disabled respondent. Our task is merely to
Contract[s] with special provisions on (Republic Act No. 7277), on determine whether the NLRC
duration of contract as specified under proscription against discrimination committed grave abuse of discretion
Art. 80. Hence, as correctly held by against disabled persons. 11 in applying the law to the established
the Labor Arbiter a quo, the terms of facts, as above-quoted from the
In the main, the Court will resolve
the contract shall be the law between assailed Decision.
whether petitioners have become
the parties. 10
regular employees. Main Issue
The NLRC also declared that the
This Court's Ruling Are Petitioners Regular Employee?
Magna Carta for Disabled Persons was
not applicable, "considering the The petition is meritorious. However, Petitioners maintain that they should
prevailing circumstances/milieu of the only the employees, who worked for be considered regular employees,
case." more than six months and whose because their task as money sorters
Issues contracts were renewed are deemed and counters was necessary and
regular. Hence, their dismissal from desirable to the business of
In their Memorandum, petitioners cite employement was illegal. respondent bank. They further allege
the following grounds in support of that their contracts served merely to
Preliminary Matter:
their cause: preclude the application of Article 280
Propriety of Certiorari and to bar them from becoming
I. The Honorable Commission
regular employees.
committed grave abuse of discretion Respondent Far East Bank and Trust
in holding that the petitioners — Company argues that a review of the Private respondent, on the other hand,
money sorters and counters working findings of facts of the NLRC is not submits that petitioners were hired
in a bank — were not regular allowed in a petition for certiorari. only as "special workers and should
employees. Specifically, it maintains that the not in any way be considered as part
Court cannot pass upon the findings of of the regular complement of the
Bank." 12 Rather, they were "special" viewed in light of the Labor Code and (a) The names and addresses of the
workers under Article 80 of the Labor the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, handicapped workers to be employed;
Code. Private respondent contends indubitably show that the petitioners,
(b) The rate to be paid the
that it never solicited the services of except sixteen of them, should be
handicapped workers which shall be
petitioners, whose employment was deemed regular employees. As such,
not less than seventy five (75%) per
merely an "accommodation" in they have acquired legal rights that
cent of the applicable legal minimum
response to the requests of this Court is duty-bound to protect and
wage;
government officials and civic-minded uphold, not as a matter of compassion
citizens. They were told from the start, but as a consequence of law and (c) The duration of employment
"with the assistance of government justice. period; and
representatives," that they could not
The uniform employment contracts of (d) The work to be performed by
become regular employees because
the petitioners stipulated that they handicapped workers.
there were no plantilla positions for
shall be trained for a period of one
"money sorters," whose task used to
month, after which the employer shall The employment agreement shall be
be performed by tellers. Their
determine whether or not they should subject to inspection by the Secretary
contracts were renewed several times,
be allowed to finish the 6-month term of Labor or his duly authorized
not because of need "but merely for
of the contract. Furthermore, the representatives.
humanitarian reasons." Respondent
employer may terminate the contract
submits that "as of the present, the The stipulations in the employment
at any time for a just and reasonable
"special position" that was created for contracts indubitably conform with the
cause. Unless renewed in writing by
the petitioners no longer exist[s] in aforecited provision. Succeeding
the employer, the contract shall
private respondent [bank], after the events and the enactment of RA No.
automatically expire at the end of the
latter had decided not to renew 7277 (the Magna Carta for Disabled
term.1âwphi1.nêt
anymore their special employment Persons), 13 however, justify the
contracts." According to private respondent, the application of Article 280 of the Labor
employment contracts were prepared Code.
At the outset, let it be known that this
in accordance with Article 80 of the
Court appreciates the nobility of Respondent bank entered into the
Labor code, which provides;
private respondent's effort to provide aforesaid contract with a total of 56
employment to physically impaired Art. 80. Employment agreement. — handicapped workers and renewed the
individuals and to make them more Any employer who employs contracts of 37 of them. In fact, two of
productive members of society. handicapped workers shall enter into them worked from 1988 to 1993.
However, we cannot allow it to elude an employment agreement with them, Verily, the renewal of the contracts of
the legal consequences of that effort, which agreement shall include: the handicapped workers and the
simply because it now deems their hiring of others lead to the conclusion
employment irrelevant. The facts, that their tasks were beneficial and
necessary to the bank. More Art. 280. Regular and Casual The primary standard, therefore, of
important, these facts show that they Employment. — The provisions of determining regular employment is
were qualified to perform the written agreement to the contrary the reasonable connection between
responsibilities of their positions. In notwithstanding and regardless of the the particular activity performed by
other words, their disability did not oral agreement of the parties, an the employee in relation to the usual
render them unqualified or unfit for employment shall be deemed to be trade or business of the employer. The
the tasks assigned to them. regular where the employee has been test is whether the former is usually
engaged to perform activities which necessary or desirable in the usual
In this light, the Magna Carta for
are usually necessary or desirable in business or trade of the employer. The
Disabled Persons mandates that a the usual business or trade of the connection can be determined by
qualified disabled employee should be
employer, except where the considering the nature of the work
given the same terms and conditions employment has been fixed for a performed and its relation to the
of employment as a qualified able-
specific project or undertaking the scheme of the particular business or
bodied person. Section 5 of the Magna
completion or termination of which trade in its entirety. Also if the
Carta provides: has been determined at the time of employee has been performing the job
Sec. 5. Equal Opportunity for the engagement of the employee or for at least one year, even if the
Employment. — No disabled person where the work or services to be performance is not continuous and
shall be denied access to opportunities performed is seasonal in nature and merely intermittent, the law deems
for suitable employment. A qualified the employment is for the duration of repeated and continuing need for its
disabled employee shall be subject to the season. performance as sufficient evidence of
the same terms and conditions of the necessity if not indispensibility of
An employment shall be deemed to be
employment and the same that activity to the business. Hence,
casual if it is not covered by the
compensation, privileges, benefits, the employment is considered regular,
preceding paragraph: Provided, That,
fringe benefits, incentives or but only with respect to such activity,
any employee who has rendered at
allowances as a qualified able bodied and while such activity exist.
least one year of service, whether
person. such service is continuous or broken, Without a doubt, the task of counting
The fact that the employees were shall be considered as regular and sorting bills is necessary and
qualified disabled persons necessarily employee with respect to the activity desirable to the business of
removes the employment contracts in which he is employed and his respondent bank. With the exception
from the ambit of Article 80. Since the employment shall continue while such of sixteen of them, petitioners
Magna Carta accords them the rights activity exists. performed these tasks for more than
of qualified able-bodied persons, they six months. Thus, the following
The test of whether an employee is
are thus covered by Article 280 of the twenty-seven petitioners should be
regular was laid down in De Leon
Labor Code, which provides: deemed regular employees: Marites
v. NLRC, 14 in which this Court held:
Bernardo, Elvira Go Diamante,
Rebecca E. David, David P. Pascual, security of tenure; that is, their We are not persuaded. The term limit
Raquel Estiller, Albert Hallare, services may be terminated only for a in the contract was premised on the
Edmund M. Cortez, Joselito O. Agdon, just or authorized cause. Because fact that the petitioners were disabled,
George P. Ligutan Jr., Lilibeth Q. respondent failed to show such and that the bank had to determine
Marmolejo, Jose E. Sales, Isabel cause, 17 these twenty-seven their fitness for the position. Indeed,
Mamauag, Violeta G. Montes, Albino petitioners are deemed illegally its validity is based on Article 80 of the
Tecson, Melody V. Gruela, Bernadeth dismissed and therefore entitled to Labor Code. But as noted earlier,
D. Agero, Cynthia de Vera, Lani R. back wages and reinstatement without petitioners proved themselves to
Cortez, Ma. Isabel B. Concepcion, loss of seniority rights and other be qualified disabled persons who,
Margaret Cecilia Canoza, Thelma privileges. 18 Considering the under the Magna Carta for Disabled
Sebastian, Ma. Jeanette Cervantes, allegation of respondent that the job Persons, are entitled to terms and
Jeannie Ramil, Rozaida Pascual, Pinky of money sorting is no longer available conditions of employment enjoyed
Baloloa, Elizabeth Ventura and Grace because it has been assigned back to by qualified able-bodied individuals;
S. Pardo. the tellers to whom it originally hence, Article 80 does not apply
belonged, 18 petitioners are hereby because petitioners are qualified for
As held by the Court, "Articles 280 and
awarded separation pay in lieu of their positions. The validation of the
281 of the Labor Code put an end to reinstatement. 20 limit imposed on their contracts,
the pernicious practice of making
imposed by reason of their disability,
permanent casuals of our lowly Because the other sixteen worked only was a glaring instance of the very
employees by the simple expedient of for six months, they are not deemed
mischief sought to be addressed by
extending to them probationary regular employees and hence not
the new law.
appointments, ad infinitum."15 The entitled to the same benefits.
contract signed by petitioners is akin Moreover, it must be emphasized that
Applicability of the
to a probationary employment, during a contract of employment is impressed
which the bank determined the Brent Ruling with public interest. 22 Provisions of
employees' fitness for the job. When applicable statutes are deemed
the bank renewed the contract after Respondent bank, citing Brent School written into the contract, and the
the lapse of the six-month v. Zamora 21 in which the Court "parties are not at liberty to insulate
probationary period, the employees upheld the validity of an employment themselves and their relationships
thereby became regular contract with a fixed term, argues that from the impact of labor laws and
employees. 16 No employer is allowed the parties entered into the contract regulations by simply contracting with
to determine indefinitely the fitness of on equal footing. It adds that the each other." 23 Clearly, the agreement
its employees. petitioners had in fact an advantage, of the parties regarding the period of
because they were backed by then employment cannot prevail over the
As regular employees, the twenty- DSWD Secretary Mita Pardo de Tavera provisions of the Magna Carta for
seven petitioners are entitled to and Representative Arturo Borjal. Disabled Persons, which mandate that
petitioners must be treated as and that its plantilla did not contain completely ruling out all written and
qualified able-bodied employees. their positions. In L. T. Datu oral agreements inconsistent with the
25
v. NLRC, the Court held that "the concept of regular employment
Respondent's reason for terminating
determination of whether employment defined therein. Where an employee
the employment of petitioners is is casual or regular does not depend has been engaged to perform
instructive. Because the Bangko
on the will or word of the employer, activities which are usually necessary
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) required and the procedure of hiring . . . but on or desirable in the usual business of
that cash in the bank be turned over
the nature of the activities performed the employer, such employee is
to the BSP during business hours from
by the employee, and to some extent, deemed a regular employee and is
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., respondent the length of performance and its entitled to security of tenure
resorted to nighttime sorting and
continued existence." notwithstanding the contrary
counting of money. Thus, it reasons provisions of his contract of
that this task "could not be done by Private respondent argues that the
employment.
deaf mutes because of their physical petitioners were informed from the
limitations as it is very risky for them start that they could not become xxx xxx xxx
to travel at night." 24 We find no basis regular employees. In fact, the bank
At this juncture, the leading case
for this argument. Travelling at night adds, they agreed with the stipulation
of Brent School,
involves risks to handicapped and in the contract regarding this point.
Inc. v. Zamora proves instructive. As
able-bodied persons alike. This excuse Still, we are not persuaded. The well-
reaffirmed in subsequent cases, this
cannot justify the termination of their settled rule is that the character of
Court has upheld the legality of fixed-
employment. employment is determined not by
term employment. It ruled that the
stipulations in the contract, but by the
Other Grounds Cited by Respondent nature of the work decisive determinant in "term
employment" should not be the
Respondent argues that petitioners performed. 26 Otherwise, no employee
activities that the employee is called
were merely "accommodated" can become regular by the simple
upon to perform but the day certain
employees. This fact does not change expedient of incorporating this
agreed upon the parties for the
the nature of their employment. As condition in the contract of
commencement and termination of
earlier noted, an employee is regular employment.
their employment relationship. But
because of the nature of work and the
In this light, we iterate our ruling this Court went on to say that where
length of service, not because of the in Romares v. NLRC: 27 from the circumstances it is apparent
mode or even the reason for hiring
that the periods have been imposed to
them. Art. 280 was emplaced in our statute preclude acquisition of tenurial
books to prevent the circumvention of
Equally unavailing are private security by the employee, they should
the employee's right to be secure in
respondent's arguments that it did not be struck down or disregarded as
his tenure by indiscriminately and
go out of its way to recruit petitioners, contrary to public policy and morals.
In rendering this Decision, the Court the same rights like any other regular George P. Ligutan Jr., Liliberh Q.
emphasizes not only the constitutional employees. Marmolejo, Jose E. Sales, Isabel
bias in favor of the working class, but Mamauag, Violeta G. Montes, Albino
In this light, we note the Office of the
also the concern of the State for the Tecson, Melody V. Gruela, Bernadeth
Solicitor General's prayer joining the
plight of the disabled. The noble D. Agero, Cynthia de Vera, Lani R.
petitioners' cause. 28
objectives of Magna Carta for Disabled Cortez, Ma. Isabel B. Concepcion,
Persons are not based merely on WHEREFORE, premises considered, Margaret Cecilia Canoza, Thelma
charity or accommodation, but on the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Sebastian, Ma. Jeanette Cervantes,
justice and the equal treatment June 20, 1995 Decision and the Jeannie Ramil, Rozaida Pascual, Pinky
of qualified persons, disabled or not. August 4, 1995 Resolution of the NLRC Baloloa, Elizabeth Ventura and Grace
In the present case, the handicap of are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. S. Pardo. The NLRC is hereby directed
petitioners (deaf-mutes) is not a Respondent Far East Bank and Trust to compute the exact amount due
hindrance to their work. The eloquent Company is hereby ORDERED to pay each of said employees, pursuant to
proof of this statement is the repeated back wages and separation pay to existing laws and regulations, within
renewal of their employment each of the following twenty-seven fifteen days from the finality of this
contracts. Why then should they be (27) petitioners, namely, Marites Decision. No costs.1âwphi1.nêt
dismissed, simply because they are Bernardo, Elvira Go Diamante, SO ORDERED.
physically impaired? The Court Rebecca E. David, David P. Pascual,
believes, that, after showing their Raquel Estiller, Albert Hallare,
fitness for the work assigned to them, Edmund M. Cortez, Joselito O. Agdon,
they should be treated and granted