MARITES BERNARDO, ELVIRA GO DIAMANTE, REBECCA E. DAVID, DAVID P.

PASCUAL, RAQUEL ESTILLER, ALBERT HALLARE, EDMUND M. CORTEZ,

JOSELITO O. AGDON GEORGE P. LIGUTAN JR., CELSO M. YAZAR, ALEX G.
CORPUZ, RONALD M. DELFIN, ROWENA M. TABAQUERO, CORAZON C. DELOS
REYES, ROBERT G. NOORA, MILAGROS O. LEQUIGAN, ADRIANA F.
TATLONGHARI, IKE CABANDUCOS, COCOY NOBELLO, DORENDA
CANTIMBUHAN, ROBERT MARCELO, LILIBETH Q. MARMOLEJO, JOSE E. SALES,
ISABEL MAMAUAG, VIOLETA G. MONTES, ALBINO TECSON, MELODY V.
GRUELA, BERNADETH D. AGERO, CYNTHIA DE VERA, LANI R. CORTEZ, MA.
ISABEL B. CONCEPCION, DINDO VALERIO, ZENAIDA MATA, ARIEL DEL PILAR,
MARGARET CECILIA CANOZA, THELMA SEBASTIAN, MA. JEANETTE
CERVANTES, JEANNIE RAMIL, ROZAIDA PASCUAL, PINKY BALOLOA,
ELIZABETH VENTURA, GRACE S. PARDO & RICO TIMOSA, petitioners vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION & FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST
COMPANY, respondents.
GR No. 122917; July 12, 1999
Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J

Facts: Complainants Bernardo et. al., are deaf mutes who were hired an various periods
from 1988-1993 by FEBTC as money sorters and counters through a uniformly worded
agreement called Employment Contract for Handicapped Workers. In 1982, 2 deaf mutes
were hired under that agreement until rose to 56 deaf mutes. Thelma was the last
employee under the employment contract for Handicapped workers in 1992 until July
1993.
Respondent disclaiming that complainants were regular employees, respondent
maintained that complaints are special workers that hired temporarily under special
agreement with was a result of overtures made by some civic and political personalities
to the bank, complainants were hired because the pakiusap of A. 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 respondent or in any other bank in the
Phils. Which deals with a purely counting and sorting of bills in banking corporation.
NLRC ruled that the petitioners could not be deemed as regular employees under
Article 280 of the LC. Petitioner hired as an accommodation to recommendation of civic
central personalities whose employments were covered employment contract with special
provision on duration of contracts as specified in Article 280, also they ruled that Mgna
Carta for Disable was not applicable.

Issue: 1. Whether or not Petitioner as moner sorter and counters working in a bank, as
regular employee.
 2. Whether or not contract of 6 Mos. is valid.
3. Whether or not this case did not apply RA 722 Magna Carta for Disable Person,
A proscription against the discrimination against Disable Person.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that petition is meritorious, however the employees
work for than 6 mos. and whose contract renewed are deemed regular. Hence, their
dismissal from employment was illegal. The Court appreciate the nobility of private
respondent efforts to provide employment to physically impaired individuals and to make
the more productive members of society. In the light of LC and Motion for Disabled Person
indubitably show that the petitioners except 16 of them are regular employees, they have
acquired legal rights that the court is duty-bound to protect and uphold, not as matter of
compassion, but as a consequence of law and justice.
The Court held that the contract were prepared in accordance with Article 280 of
LC. When respondent entered into contract with total: with total with 56 handicapped
workers and renewed 37 of them. Renewal of contracts of the handicapped workers and
he hiring of other lead to conclusion that their tasks were beneficial or necessary to the
bank. These facts were qualified to perform responsibility of their position. In the other
words, their disability did not render them unqualified.
In Magna Carta for Disability mandates that a qualified disabled employee should
n\be given the same terms and conditions as a qualified person , which laid down in Sec.
5 OF Magna Carta for Disabled Person. The fact that employees were qualified disabled
persons necessarily removes the employment contract from the ambit of Art. 280, since
Magna Carta accords them the rights of qualified disabled persons.
The Court also held the Article 280 and 281 of the LC, put an end to the pernicious
practice of making permanent casual of our lowly employees by the simple expedient of
extending to them probationary appointments, ad infinitum. The contract signed by the
petitioners is akin to a probationary employment during which bank determined the
employee’s fitness for the job. When the bank renewed the contract after lapse of the 6
mos. probationary period, the employees became Regular Employees. As Regular
employee, 27 petitioner are entitled to security of tenure, the services terminated only
for just or authorized caused. Because respondent failed to show such case, 27 petitioners
are deemed illegally dismissed and therefore entitled to back wages reinstatement
without loss of seniority of rights and other privileges.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The June
20, 1995 Decision and the August 4, 1995 Resolution of the NLRC are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. Respondent Far East Bank and Trust Company is hereby ORDERED to pay
back wages and separation pay to each of the following twenty-seven (27) petitioners,
namely, Marites Bernardo, Elvira Go Diamante, Rebecca E. David, David P. Pascual,
Raquel Estiller, Albert Hallare, Edmund M. Cortez, Joselito O. Agdon, George P. Ligutan
Jr., Lilibeth Q. Marmolejo, Jose E. Sales, Isabel Mamauag, Violeta G. Montes, Albino
Tecson, Melody V. Gruela, Bernadeth D. Agero, Cynthia de Vera, Lani R. Cortez, Ma.
Isabel B. Concepcion, Margaret Cecilia Canoza, Thelma Sebastian, Ma. Jeanette
Cervantes, Jeannie Ramil, Rozaida Pascual, Pinky Baloloa, Elizabeth Ventura and Grace
S. Pardo. The NLRC is hereby directed to compute the exact amount due each of said
employees, pursuant to existing laws and regulations, within fifteen days from the finality
of this Decision. No costs.