property from spouses Eugenio and Felisa, part of a 400-square meter lot registered in the name of the Gomez spouses.. In October, 1991, he received a demand letter from Atty. Alexander demanding payment for rentals from 1987 to 1991 until he leaves the premises, as said property is owned by Purisima; failing which, civil and criminal charges will be brought against him. This demand letter was followed by another demand letter. According to Artemio, the demand letter caused him damages prompting him to file a complaint for damages against Purisima and Atty. Alexander. In their defense, Atty. Alexander alleged that he merely acted in behalf of his client Purisima, who contested the ownership of the lot by Artemio. Purisima alleged that the lot was pat of an 800-sq. meter property owned by her late husband, Eulogio, which was divided into two parts. The 400-square meter lot was conveyed to the spouses Gomez by virtue of a fictitious deed of sale, with the agreement that it will be held in trust by the Gomezes in behalf of their (Eulogio and Purisima) children. Artemio is only renting the property which he occupies. She only learned of the deed of sale by the Gomez spouses to Artemio when the latter filed the case for damages against her and Atty. Alexander. ISSUE: Whether or not Artemio and Atty. Alexander and Purisima liable for damages, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. HELD: In order to be liable for damages under the abuse of rights principle, the following requisites must concur: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another In the present case, there is nothing on record which will prove that Nala and her counsel, Atty. Del Prado, acted in bad faith or malice in sending the demand letters to respondent. In the first place, there was ground for Nalas actions since she believed that the property was owned by her husband Eulogio Duyan and that respondent was illegally occupying the same. She had no knowledge that spouses Gomez violated the trust imposed on them by Eulogio and surreptitiously sold a portion of the property to respondent. It was only after respondent filed the case for damages against Nala that she learned of such sale. Nala was acting well within her rights when she instructed Atty. Del Prado to send the demand letters. She had to take all the necessary
legal steps to enforce her legal/equitable
rights over the property occupied by respondent. One who makes use of his own legal right does no injury. Thus, whatever damages are suffered by respondent should be borne solely by him.
Bernardo et al v. NLRC & FEBTC
GR No. 122917, 12 July 1999 Facts: The dismissed complainants, numbering 43, are deaf-mutes who were hired on various periods from 1988 to 1993 by respondent Far East Bank and Trust Co. as Money Sorters and Counters through a uniformly worded agreement called "Employment Contract for Handicapped Workers". Disclaiming that complainants were regular employees, respondent Far East Bank and Trust Company maintained that complainants were hired temporarily under a special employment arrangement which was a result of overtures made by some civic and political personalities to the respondent Bank; that complainant[s] were hired due to "pakiusap"; that the tellers themselves already did the sorting and counting chore as a regular feature and integral part of their duties; that through the "pakiusap" of Arturo Borjal, the tellers were relieved of this task of counting and sorting bills in favor of deaf-mutes without creating new positions as there is no position either in the respondent or in any other bank in the Philippines which deals with purely counting and sorting of bills in banking operations. The LA &, on appeal, the NLRC ruled against petitioners, holding that they could not be deemed regular employees since they were hired as an accommodation to the recommendation of civic oriented personalities whose employments were covered by Employment Contracts w/ special provisions on duration of contract as specified under Art. 80. Hence, the terms of the contract shall be the law between the parties. Issue: Whether regular employees
petitioners
have
become
Held: Only the employees, who worked for
more than six months and whose contracts were renewed are deemed regular. Hence, their dismissal from employment was illegal. The facts, viewed in light of the Labor Code and the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, indubitably show that the petitioners, except sixteen of them, should be deemed regular employees. The uniform employment contracts of the petitioners stipulated that they shall be trained for a period of one month, after which the employer shall determine whether or not
they should be allowed to finish the 6-month
term of the contract. Furthermore, the employer may terminate the contract at any time for a just and reasonable cause. Unless renewed in writing by the employer, the contract shall automatically expire at the end of the term. The stipulations in the employment contracts indubitably conform with Art. 80 LC w/c provides for the requisites in the employment agreement between an employer who employs handicapped workers. Succeeding events and the enactment of RA No. 7277 (the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons), 13 however, justify the application of Article 280 of the Labor Code. Respondent bank entered into the aforesaid contract with a total of 56 handicapped workers and renewed the contracts of 37 of them. Verily, the renewal of the contracts of the handicapped workers and the hiring of others lead to the conclusion that their tasks were beneficial and necessary to the bank. More important, these facts show that they were qualified to perform the responsibilities of their positions. In other words, their disability did not render them unqualified or unfit for the tasks assigned to them. In this light, the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that a qualified disabled employee should be given the same terms and conditions of employment as a qualified ablebodied person. The fact that the employees were qualified disabled persons necessarily removes the employment contracts from the ambit of Article 80. Since the Magna Carta accords them the rights of qualified able-bodied persons, they are thus covered by Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Without a doubt, the task of counting and
sorting bills is necessary and desirable to the business of respondent bank. With the exception of sixteen of them, petitioners performed these tasks for more than six months. Thus, the twenty-seven petitioners should be deemed regular employees. The contract signed by petitioners is akin to a probationary employment, during which the bank determined the employees' fitness for the job. When the bank renewed the contract after the lapse of the six-month probationary period, the employees thereby became regular employees. 16 No employer is allowed to determine indefinitely the fitness of its employees. Moreover, it must be emphasized that a contract of employment is impressed with public interest. Provisions of applicable statutes are deemed written into the contract, and the "parties are not at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting with each other." Clearly, the agreement of the parties regarding the period of employment cannot prevail over the provisions of the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, which mandate that petitioners must be treated as qualified able-bodied employees. An employee is regular because of the nature of work and the length of service, not because of the mode or even the reason for hiring them.