Topic: Handicapped Workers MARITES BERNARDO, ET AL. vs. NLRC AND AR EAST BAN! AND TR"ST COM#AN$ %&.R.

No. '(()'* +,-. '(, '))) / #onen0e: KAPUNAN, J.: Na0,re: This is a petition for Certiorari challenging the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the A g st, !! "##$ r ling of Labor Arbiter Cornelio L% Linsangan dismissing the complaint for lac& of merit% ac0s: Complainants are deaf'm tes who were hired on (ario s periods b) respondent *ar +ast ,an& and Tr st Co% as -one) .orters and Co nters thro gh a niforml) worded agreement called /+mplo)ment Contract for 0andicapped 1or&ers/% Their emplo)ments were renewed e(er) si2 months s ch that b) the time this case arose, there were fift)'si2 (34) deaf'm tes who were emplo)ed b) respondent nder the said emplo)ment agreement% The said agreement pro(ides for the manner of how the) are hired and be rehired, the amo nt of their wages, period of emplo)ment and the manner and methods of how their wor&s are to be done% Claiming that the) sho ld be considered as reg lar emplo)ees the) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and reco(er) of (ario s benefits% Respondent *ar +ast ,an& and Tr st Compan) maintained that petitioners were hired onl) as /special wor&ers and sho ld not in an) wa) be considered as part of the reg lar complement of the ,an&% Rather, the) were /special/ wor&ers nder Article 56 of the Labor Code% Pri(ate respondent contends that it ne(er solicited the ser(ices of petitioners, whose emplo)ment was merel) an /accommodation/ in response to the re7 ests of go(ernment officials and ci(ic'minded citi8ens% The) were told from the start, /with the assistance of go(ernment representati(es,/ that the) co ld not become reg lar emplo)ees beca se there were no plantilla positions for /mone) sorters,/ whose tas& sed to be performed b) tellers% Their contracts were renewed se(eral times, not beca se of need /b t merel) for h manitarian reasons%/ Respondent s bmits that /as of the present, the /special position/ that was created for the petitioners no longer e2ist9s: in pri(ate respondent 9ban&:, after the latter had decided not to renew an)more their special emplo)ment contracts%/ The labor arbiter dismissed for lac& of merit and r led that the terms of the contract shall be the law between the parties% This was affirmed b) the NLRC and declared that the -agna Carta for ;isabled Persons was not applicable, /considering the pre(ailing circ mstances<milie of the case% Iss,e: 1hether or not petitioners sho ld be considered as reg lar emplo)ees% R,-in1: =+.% Petitioners sho ld be considered as reg lar emplo)ees b t onl) those who wor&ed for more than si2 months and whose contracts were renewed Respondent ban& entered into the aforesaid contract with a total of 34 handicapped wor&ers and renewed the contracts of >? of them% @n fact, two of them wor&ed from "#55 to "##>% Aeril), the renewal of the contracts of the handicapped wor&ers and the hiring of others lead to the concl sion that their tas&s were beneficial and necessar) to the ban&% -ore important, these facts show that the) were 7 alified to perform the responsibilities of their positions% @n other words, their disabilit) did not render them n7 alified or nfit for the tas&s assigned to them% @n this light, the -agna Carta for ;isabled Persons mandates that a qualified disabled emplo)ee sho ld be gi(en the same terms and conditions of emplo)ment as a qualified able'bodied person as pro(ided nder .ection 3 of the -agna Carta% The fact that the emplo)ees were 7 alified disabled persons necessaril) remo(es the emplo)ment contracts from the ambit of Article 56% .ince the -agna Carta accords them the rights of 7 alified able'bodied persons, the) are th s co(ered b) Article !56 of the Labor Code which pro(ides that emplo)ment shall be deemed to be reg lar where the emplo)ee has been engaged to perform acti(ities which are s all) necessar) or desirable in the s al b siness or trade of the emplo)ee% The test of whether an emplo)ee is reg lar as laid down in De Leon v% NLRC is whent it is s all) necessar) or desirable in the s al b siness or trade of the emplo)er% 1itho t a do bt, the tas& of co nting and sorting bills is necessar) and desirable to the b siness of respondent ban&% 1ith the e2ception of si2teen of them, petitioners performed these tas&s for more than si2 months% Th s, the twent)'se(en petitioners sho ld be deemed reg lar emplo)ees%The contract signed b) petitioners is a&in to a probationar) emplo)ment, d ring which the ban& determined the emplo)eesB fitness for the Cob% 1hen the ban& renewed the contract after the lapse of the si2'month probationar) period, the emplo)ees thereb) became reg lar employees. Hence, as regular employees, the twenty-seven petitioners are entitled to security of tenure; that is, their services may be terminated only for a just or authorized cause Disposi0ive #or0ion:
10 + R+ *DR+, pre mise s considere d, the Petition is here b) ERANT +; % T he F ne !6, "##3 ;ecision and the A g st $, "##3 Resol tion of the N LRC are R+A +R. +; and .+T A. @; +% Re spondent *ar +ast ,a n& and Tr st Compan ) is hereb ) DR; +R+; to pa ) bac & wa ges and se para tion pa ) to each of the following twe nt )' se (en (!?) petitioner s, na mel ), -ar ites ,e rnar do, +l(ira Eo ; ia ma nte, Rebecca +% ;a (id, ;a (id P% Pasc a l, Ra 7 e l +stiller, Albert 0a lla re, +dm nd -% Cor te8, Foselito D% A gdon, Ee orge P% Lig ta n Fr%, Liliber h G% -ar moleC o, Fose + % .ale s, @sa bel -a ma a g, Aioleta E% -onte s, Albino Tec son, -elod ) A% Er ela, ,er nade th ;% A ge r o, C )nthia de Aera , Lani R% Cor te8 , -a % @sabe l ,% Concepc ion, -argaret Cec ilia Ca no8a , T helma .eba stian, -a % Fea nette Cer (ante s, Fea nnie Ra mil, Ro8a ida Pa sc a l, P in&) ,a loloa , + li8abe th Ae nt ra and Erace .% Par do% T he NLRC is here b) direc te d to c omp te the e2ac t amo nt d e each of said emplo)ee s, p rs ant to e2isting la ws and reg la tions, within fif tee n da )s fr om the finalit ) of this ;ec ision% No costs% 1wphi1.nt .D DR;+R+;%