G.R. No.

122917 July 12, 1999

MARITES BERNARDO, et,al, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST
COMPANY, respondents.

Facts:
• This is a certiorari filed by 43 petitioners regarding the NLRC decision which affirms the LA
ruling that their complaint for illegal dismissal was dismissed for lack of merit.
• Complainants are all deaf-mutes who were hired by Far East Bank and Trust Co and money
sorters through the Employment Contract for Handicapped Workers. Their employments were
renewed every 6 months.
• Later on, they were dismissed from employment because their job is no longer needed by the
bank. Hence, they filed for complaint stating that they are regular employees of Far East Bank
and they were dismissed without just cause.
• Far East Bank argues that the petitioners were employed under a special employment
arrangement which resulted from pakiusap of civil and political personalities. They also
contends that it was already established at the start that they are not regular employees.
• LA dismissed the complaint of the petitioners.
• NLRC affirmed such ruling, stating that they were merely hired as accommodation to the
request and recommendation of persons who wanted to hire handicapped workers and that
pursuant to Article 80 of the Labor Code, no violation was done by Far East Bank.

Issue:
• Whether or not the petitioners who are deaf-mutes are regular employees.

Ruling:
• Yes, but only for those who have worked for more than 6 months and whose contracts are
deemed regular (27 petitioners).
• Article 80 of the Labor Code provides for the employment agreement that shall govern the
employer who employs handicapped workers. It includes the names of who to employ, the rate
to be paid which should not be less than 75% of the minimum wage, duration of employment
period, and work to be performed by handicapped workers. In the case at hand, the Far East
Bank followed such guidelines as evidenced by the Employment Contract for Handicapped
Workers.
• However, the enactment of RA 7277 or the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons provides that a
qualified disabled employee should be given the same terms and conditions of employment as
a qualified able-bodied person1. Hence, Article 80 cannot be applied but rather, it should be
Article 280 of the Labor Code2.

1Section 5 of RA 7277 states that Sec. 5. Equal Opportunity for Employment. — No disabled person shall be denied access to opportunities for
suitable employment. A qualified disabled employee shall be subject to the same terms and conditions of employment and the same
compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe benefits, incentives or allowances as a qualified able bodied person.

2 This is Article 295 in the Labor Code as renumbered by DOLE.

• Article 280 provides that notwithstanding the existence of written agreements, an employment
shall be deemed regular if the employees are engaged to perform activities which are necessary
or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. In the case at hand, the tasks of the
petitioners of counting and sorting bills are necessary to the business of the bank.
• Furthermore, the Court clarified that the character of employment is determined not by
stipulations in the contract, but by the nature of the work performed.
• The noble objectives of the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons are not based merely on charity
or accommodation, but on justice and the equal treatment of qualified persons, disabled or not.
in the case, the handicap of the deaf mutes is not a hindrance to their work.