BERNARDO v NLRC/FAR EAST BANK

F: The petitioners are deaf-mutes hired on various periods from 1988 to 1993 by
respondent Far East Bank as Money Sorters and Counters through an agreement for
handicapped workers. Said agreement was in compliance with Art. 80 LC, and inclu
ded the following provisions: one-month probationary period, regular work schedu
le with overtime, 13th month pay, incentive leave, and SSS premium payment. It a
lso states that the petitioners were hired under a special employment program, f
or which reason the STANDARD HIRING REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT APPLIED, meaning that
the normal terms and conditions were in applicable. It also provided a 6-month t
erm.
Multiple waves of deaf-mutes were hired under this agreement, eventually reachin
g 56. The petitioners then file a complaint claiming that they were now regular
employees.
Ans: Special class of workers under a different arrangement. Practically hired d
ue to pakiusap-- task was formerly under tellers.
LA: Dismissed complaint.
NLRC: Affirmed. Art. 280 is inapplicable-- the wording of contract placed the ca
se under Art. 80, allowing for special provisions on duration (GR: Terms of cont
ract are law between the parties). Magna Carta for Disabled Persons inapplicable
given 'prevailing circumstances of the case.'
I: Whether or not the petitioners were now regular employees.
H/R: YES. They were qualified employees, placing them at the same status as qual
ified ablebodied employees-- Art. 280 may now apply.
Arg: Work was necessary and desirable. Contracts meant to circumvent Art. 280 on
regularization.
Ans: Special workers under Art. 80-- special accommodation, which was even noted
in the contract. Renewal of contracts meant merely for humanitarian reasons.
- The contracts provide for a one-month probationary period, and a six-month ter
m. They may be terminated for just and reasonable causes. Finally, unless renewe
d in writing by the employer, they automatically expire at the end of the term.
- These were supposedly prepared in accordance with Art. 80 LC, which does allow
for a different treatment. The Court held this to be true.
- However, succeeding events and the enactment of the Magna Carta for Disabled P
ersons justify the application of Art. 280.
- It must be noted that the contracts were continuously renewed and that more wo
rkers were hired-- it seems the bank realizes that their tasks were beneficial a
nd necessary. Further, they were considered qualified for the responsibilities--
disability never rendered them unfit for work.
- Given this, the Magna Carta mandates that a qualified disabled employee should
be given the same terms and conditions of employment as a qualified able-bodied
person (Sec. 5). This places the workers outside the ambit of Art. 80 LC, as th
ey now have rights as if they were qualified able-bodied persons.
- These rights include regularization under Art. 280. Applying the de Leon test,
it seemed that the task of counting and sorting bills was indeed necessary and
desirable to the business of respondent bank [the acid test for regularization w
as the connection of the work].
- Effect: The employees that worked for over six months were now deemed regular
employees.
- Why? Art. 280-281 acknowledges the practice of extending probationary employme
nt ad infinitum to prevent employees from ever becoming regulars.
Special Case: Application of the Brent ruling [should the Court uphold the terms
of the contract instead of considering Art. 280 LC?]
- Arg: Parties entered into contract on equal footing; here, there was even an a
dvantage as the petitioners were backed by the DWSD
- The term limit, based on Art. 80, was premised on the fact that the petitioner
s were disabled, and that the bank had to determine their fitness for the positi
on.
- However, as the petitioners proved themselves to be qualified disabled persons
, Art. 80 does not apply anymore as they are to be treated as if they were quali
fied able bodied persons.
- Further, contracts of employment are impressed with public interest. Applicabl
e statutes are deemed written into the contract-- the parties cannot simply use
the contract as a means of evading the law. Their agreement must fall given the
laws that are also written into the contract.
- Arg: Termination bec. risks involved with night-time work: No basis. Anyone is
at risk at night.
- Arg: Accommodated employees: Does not change nature of employment. Regularizat
ion based on nature of work and length of service-- mode of hire and contrctual
provisions do not matter; otherwise, it would be very easy to circumvent the law
by relying on employment contracts.