Bernardo v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Forty-three deaf-mute individuals were hired by Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) between 1988 and 1993 under an "Employment Contract for Handicapped Workers." These contracts were uniformly worded and stipulated a six-month term, with renewals. The employees performed tasks such as sorting and counting money. FEBTC claimed these employees were hired under a special arrangement due to requests from civic and political personalities, and that their positions were not part of the regular plantilla. The employees argued that they had become regular employees due to the nature of their work and the repeated renewal of their contracts. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, and subsequently denied the Motion for Reconsideration. The Petition: The petitioners, forty-three deaf-mute employees, filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the NLRC's decision and resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners, deaf-mute employees hired under special employment contracts, attained the status of regular employees. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in not applying the provisions of the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (Republic Act No. 7277).
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. It held that the petitioners were illegally dismissed and are entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The Court found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in not applying the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons and in disregarding the established tests for determining regular employment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the petitioners attained the status of regular employees: The Court reiterated the test for determining regular employment, which focuses on the nature of the activities performed by the employee, the length of performance, and its continued existence, rather than the stipulations in the contract or the employer's will. The Court emphasized that the practice of extending probationary appointments indefinitely to circumvent the regularization of employees is prohibited. Given that the petitioners performed tasks integral to the bank's operations and their contracts were repeatedly renewed, they had acquired the status of regular employees. The Court noted that the stipulations in the employment contracts regarding the fixed term and the inapplicability of certain Labor Code provisions could not prevail over the substantive rights of regular employees. On the issue of whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in not applying the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons: The Court held that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates equal terms and conditions of employment for qualified disabled persons. The Court found that the NLRC's decision failed to consider this mandate and the principle that employment contracts are impressed with public interest. The Court stated that provisions of applicable statutes are deemed written into the contract, and parties cannot insulate themselves from labor laws by contract alone. The Court also rejected the bank's justifications for termination, such as the perceived risk of nighttime travel for deaf-mutes, finding them baseless and discriminatory.
Main Doctrine
The Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that qualified disabled persons be granted the same terms and conditions of employment as qualified able-bodied 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. The determination of whether employment is regular does not depend on the will or word of the employer, but on the nature of the activities performed by the employee, the length of performance, and its continued existence.