Você está na página 1de 2

BERNARDO V.

NLRC
[G.R. No. 122917; July 12, 1999]

Facts:
A total of 43 disabled persons, particularly deaf-mutes were employed by respondent, Far East
Bank and Trust Co. from 1988-1993 as money sorters and counters through a uniformly worded
agreement called the Employment Contract for Handicapped Workers. The bank claims that the
employment of the petitioners were only made pursuant to several requests made by some civic-minded
citizens and authorized government agencies and was only in cognizance of its social responsibility to
provide gainful employment opportunities for disabled and handicapped persons. The employment
contract provides for a 6-month period unless terminated earlier by the bank for some lawful cause or
unless extended by the bank through a written contract. Of all the petitioners, only 27 of them were
employed for more than 6 months. Thereafter, their services were terminated by the bank on the grounds
that they were not needed anymore and that the money sorter and counter job has been returned to the
bank tellers who originally had them. The petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the
Labor Arbiter who dismissed the case for lack of merit. The decision was likewise affirmed by the NLRC on
the grounds that RA 7277 or the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons is not applicable in the case at bar, that
they could not be considered as regular employees entitled to security of tenure and that the applicable
provision in this case is Art. 80 of the Labor Code.
Issues:
1. Whether or not RA 7277 is applicable;
2. Whether or not the petitioners can be considered as regular employees.

Held:
1. The Magna Carta is applicable. The renewal of the contracts of 27 petitioners and the hiring of
others led to a conclusion that their tasks were beneficial and necessary to the banks business and that
they were qualified to perform the responsibilities of their positions. Hence, they could be considered as
qualified disabled persons since their disability did not render them unqualified or unfit for the tasks
assigned to them. Sec. 5 of the Magna Carta provides that a qualified disabled employee should be given
the same terms and conditions of employment as a qualified able-bodied person. Being qualified disabled
persons necessarily removes them from the ambit of Art. 80 of the Labor Code and accords them the same
rights and benefits as that of a qualified able-bodied person.
2. 27 of the petitioners should be considered as regular employees. The test in determining
regular employment is the reasonable connection of the particular activity performed by the employee to
the usual trade or business of the employer. Also, any employee who has rendered at least 1 year of
service should be considered as a regular employee with respect to such activity. As regular employees, all
27 of them were entitled to security of tenure; that is, their services could be terminated only for just and
lawful cause. The bank failed to show just and lawful cause hence, the 27 petitioners were illegally
dismissed.
Decision: NLRC decision reversed. Separation pay and back wages were awarded to the 27 petitioners.

Important Doctrine:
The noble objectives of the Magna Carta are not based merely on charity/accommodation, but on
justice and equal treatment of qualified persons, disabled or not. The disability of the petitioners in the
case at bar did not cause a hindrance in the performance of their duties. The eloquent proof thereof is the
repeated renewal of their employment contracts. Thus, they should be accorded the same rights as other
regular employees.

Você também pode gostar