labor standards full text case 3

7/18/2019 Labor Standards Full Text Case 3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/labor-standards-full-text-case-3 1/27

Case no. 1

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 109114 September 14, 1993

HOLIDA INN MANILA !"#$or HU%ERT LINER !"# %A% DIS&UITADO, petitioners,

s.

NATIONAL LA%OR RELATIONS COMMISSION 'Se(o"# D)*)+)o" !"# ELENA

HONASAN, respon!ents.

Inocentes, De Leon, Leogardo, Atienza, Manaye & Azucena Law Office for petitioners.

Florante M. Yamot for pri!ate respondent.

CRU-, J.:

The e"plo#er has absolute !iscretion in hirin$ his e"plo#ees in accor!ance %ith his stan!ar!s of

co"petence an! probit#. This is his prero$atie. Once hire!, ho%eer, the e"plo#ees are entitle!to the protection of the la% een !urin$ the probation perio! an! "ore so after the# hae

beco"e "e"bers of the re$ular force. The e"plo#er !oes not hae the sa"e free!o" in the

hirin$ of his e"plo#ees as in their !is"issal.

&lena 'onasan applie! for e"plo#"ent %ith the 'oli!a# Inn an! %as on (pril 1), 1**1, accepte!

for +onthe-ob trainin$+ as a telephone operator for a perio! of three %ees. 1 For her serices,

she receie! foo! an! transportation allo%ance. On Ma# 1/, 1**0, after co"pletin$ her trainin$, she

%as e"plo#e! on a +probationar# basis+ for a perio! of si "onths en!in$ Noe"ber 10,

1**1. 3

'er e"plo#"ent contract stipulate! that the 'otel coul! ter"inate her probationar# e"plo#"entat an# ti"e prior to the epiration of the si"onth perio! in the eent of her failure 2a3 to learn or

pro$ress in her -ob4 2b3 to faithfull# obsere an! co"pl# %ith the hotel rules an! the instructions

an! or!ers of her superiors4 or 2c3 to perfor" her !uties accor!in$ to hotel stan!ar!s.

On Noe"ber 5, 1**1, four !a#s before the epiration of the stipulate! !ea!line, 'oli!a# Inn

notifie! her of her !is"issal, on the $roun! that her perfor"ance ha! not co"e up to the

stan!ar!s of the 'otel. 4

Throu$h counsel, 'onasan file! a co"plaint for ille$al !is"issal, clai"in$ that she %as alrea!# a

re$ular e"plo#ee at the ti"e of her separation an! so %as entitle! to full securit# of tenure. / The

co"plaint %as !is"isse! on (pril 00, 1**0 b# the 6abor (rbiter, %ho hel! that her separation %as -ustifie! un!er (rticle 051 of the 6abor Co!e proi!in$ as follo%s7



Probationar# e"plo#"ent shall not ecee! si 283 "onths fro" the !ate the

e"plo#ee starte! %orin$, unless it is coere! b# an apprenticeship a$ree"ent

stipulatin$ a lon$er perio!. The serices of an e"plo#ee %ho has been en$a$e!

on a probationar# basis "a# be ter"inate! for a -ust cause or %hen he fails to

9ualif# as a re$ular e"plo#ee in accor!ance %ith reasonable stan!ar!s "a!e

no%n b# the e"plo#er to the e"plo#ee at the ti"e of his en$a$e"ent. (ne"plo#ee %ho is allo%e! to %or after a probationar# perio! shall be consi!ere!

a re$ular e"plo#ee.

On appeal, this !ecision %as reerse! b# the N6RC, %hich hel! that 'onasan ha! beco"e a

re$ular e"plo#ee an! so coul! not be !is"isse! as a probationer. In its o%n !ecision !ate!

Noe"ber 0:, 1**0, the N6RC or!ere! the petitioners to reinstate 'onasan +to her for"er position

%ithout loss of seniorit# ri$hts an! other priile$es %ith bac%a$es %ithout !e!uction an!

9ualification.+ Reconsi!eration %as !enie! in a resolution !ate! ;anuar# 08, 1**/. 2

The petitioners no% fault the N6RC for hain$ entertaine! 'onasan<s appeal althou$h it %as file!

out of ti"e an! for hol!in$ that 'onasan %as alrea!# a re$ular e"plo#ee at the ti"e of her!is"issal, %hich %as "a!e = !a#s !a#s before the epiration of the probation perio!.

The petition has no "erit.

On the ti"eliness of the appeal, it is %ellsettle! that all notices %hich a part# is entitle! to

receie "ust be course! throu$h his counsel of recor!. Conse9uentl#, the runnin$ of the

re$le"entar# perio! is recone! fro" the !ate of receipt of the -u!$"ent b# the counsel of the

appellant. 9 Notice to the appellant hi"self is not sufficient notice. 10'onasan<s counsel receie! the

!ecision of the 6abor (rbiter on Ma# 15, 1**0. 11 >efore that, ho%eer, the appeal ha! alrea!# been

file! b# 'onasan herself, on Ma# 5, 1**0. 1 The petitioners clai" that she file! it on the thirteenth but

this is irreleant. &en if the latter !ate %as accepte!, the appeal %as neertheless still file! on ti"e,

in fact een before the start of the re$le"entar# perio!.

On the issue of ille$al !is"issal, %e fin! that 'onasan %as place! b# the petitioner on probation

t%ice, first !urin$ her onthe-ob trainin$ for three %ees, an! net !urin$ another perio! of si

"onths, ostensibl# in accor!ance %ith (rticle 051. 'er probation clearl# ecee!e! the perio! of

si "onths prescribe! b# this article.

Probation is the perio! !urin$ %hich the e"plo#er "a# !eter"ine if the e"plo#ee is 9ualifie! for

possible inclusion in the re$ular force. In the case at bar, the perio! %as for three %ees, !urin$

'onasan<s onthe-ob trainin$. ?hen her serices %ere continue! after this trainin$, the

petitioners in effect reco$ni@e! that she ha! passe! probation an! %as 9ualifie! to be a re$ular

e"plo#ee.

'onasan %as certainl# un!er obseration !urin$ her three%ee onthe-ob trainin$. If her

serices proe! unsatisfactor# then, she coul! hae been !roppe! as earl# as !urin$ that perio!.

>ut she %as not. On the contrar#, her serices %ere continue!, presu"abl# because the# %ere

acceptable, althou$h she %as for"all# place! this ti"e on probation.

&en if it be suppose! that the probation !i! not en! %ith the three%ee perio! of onthe-ob

trainin$, there is still no reason %h# that perio! shoul! not be inclu!e! in the stipulate! si"onth

perio! of probation. 'onasan %as accepte! for onthe-ob trainin$ on (pril 1), 1**1. (ssu"in$that her probation coul! be eten!e! be#on! that !ate, it neertheless coul! continue onl# up to



October 1), 1**1, after the en! of si "onths fro" the earlier !ate. An!er this "ore lenient

approach, she ha! beco"e a re$ular e"plo#ee of 'oli!a# Inn an! ac9uire! full securit# of tenure

as of October 1), 1**1.

The conse9uence is that she coul! no lon$er be su""aril# separate! on the $roun! inoe! b#

the petitioners. (s a re$ular e"plo#ee, she ha! ac9uire! the protection of (rticle 0:* of the6abor Co!e statin$ as follo%s7

(rt. 0:*. "ecurity of #enure B In cases of re$ular e"plo#"ent, the e"plo#er

shall not ter"inate the serices of an e"plo#ee ecept for a -ust cause or %hen

authori@e! b# this Title. (n e"plo#ee %ho is un-ustl# !is"isse! fro" %or shall

be entitle! to reinstate"ent %ithout loss of seniorit# ri$hts an! other priile$es

an! to his full bac%a$es, inclusie of allo%ances, an! to his other benefits or

their "onetar# e9uialent co"pute! fro" the ti"e his co"pensation %as %ithhel!

fro" hi" up to the ti"e of his actual reinstate"ent.

The $roun!s for the re"oal of a re$ular e"plo#ee are enu"erate! in (rticles 050, 05/ an! 05=

of the 6abor Co!e. The proce!ure for such re"oal is prescribe! in Rule IV, >oo V of the

O"nibus Rules I"ple"entin$ the 6abor Co!e. These rules %ere not obsere! in the case at bar

as 'onasan %as si"pl# tol! that her serices %ere bein$ ter"inate! because the# %ere foun! to

be unsatisfactor#. No a!"inistratie inesti$ation of an# in! %as un!ertaen to -ustif# this

$roun!. She %as not een accor!e! prior notice, let alone a chance to be hear!.

?e fin! in the 'otel<s s#ste" of !ouble probation a transparent sche"e to circu"ent the plain

"an!ate of the la% an! "ae it easier for it to !is"iss its e"plo#ees een after the# shall hae

alrea!# passe! probation. The petitioners ha! a"ple ti"e to su""aril# ter"inate 'onasan<s

serices !urin$ her perio! of probation if the# %ere !ee"e! unsatisfactor#. Not hain$ !one so,the# "a# !is"iss her no% onl# upon proof of an# of the le$al $roun!s for the separation of

re$ular e"plo#ees, to be establishe! accor!in$ to the prescribe! proce!ure.

The polic# of the Constitution is to $ie the ut"ost protection to the %orin$ class %hen

sub-ecte! to such "aneuers as the one atte"pte! b# the petitioners. This Court is full#

co""itte! to that polic# an! has al%a#s been 9uic to rise in !efense of the ri$hts of labor, as in

this case.

?'&R&FOR&, the petition is DISMISS&D, %ith costs a$ainst petitioners. It is so or!ere!.

$ri%oA'uino, Da!ide, (r., )ellosillo and *uiason, ((., concur.

+A" -O.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION



G.R. No. 11433 September 9, 199/

NITTO ENTERPRISES, petitioner,

s.

NATIONAL LA%OR RELATIONS COMMISSION !"# RO%ERTO CAPILI, respon!ents.

APUNAN, J.:

This petition for certiorari un!er Rule 8) of the Rules of Court seein$ to annul the

!ecision 1 ren!ere! b# public respon!ent National 6abor Relations Co""ission, %hich reerse! the

!ecision of the 6abor (rbiter.

>riefl#, the facts of the case are as follo%s7

Petitioner Nitto &nterprises, a co"pan# en$a$e! in the sale of $lass an! alu"inu" pro!ucts,

hire! Roberto Capili so"eti"e in Ma# 1** as an apprentice "achinist, "ol!er an! core "aer

as ei!ence! b# an apprenticeship a$ree"ent for a perio! of si 283 "onths fro" Ma# 05, 1** to

Noe"ber 05, 1** %ith a !ail# %a$e rate of P88.:) %hich %as :)E of the applicable "ini"u"

%a$e.

(t aroun! 17 p.". of (u$ust 0, 1**, Roberto Capili %ho %as han!lin$ a piece of $lass %hich

he %as %orin$ on, acci!entall# hit an! in-ure! the le$ of an office secretar# %ho %as treate! at a

nearb# hospital.

6ater that sa"e !a#, after office hours, priate respon!ent entere! a %orshop %ithin the office

pre"ises %hich %as not his %or station. There, he operate! one of the po%er press "achines

%ithout authorit# an! in the process in-ure! his left thu"b. Petitioner spent the a"ount of

P1,0/.= to coer the "e!ication of priate respon!ent.

The follo%in$ !a#, Roberto Capili %as ase! to resi$n in a letter 3 %hich rea!s7

(u$

ust

0,

1**

?ala si#an$ tan$$ap n$ utos "ula sa superbisor at %ala si#an$ eperiensa un$

papaano $a"itin an! +TOO6+ sa pa$buhat n$ sala"in, sarili ni#an$ !esis#on an$

pa$$a"it n$ tool at "a# !is$ras#a at na!a"a# pa an$ isan$ seretar#a n$

o"pan#a.

Sa ara% !in$ ito li"an$ 2)3 "inute an$ naaalipas "ula alassin$o n$ hapon

si#a a# pu"aso sa shop na hin!i na"an saop n$ an#an$ trabaho.

Pinaiala"an at inaliot an$ "aina at na!is$ras#a ni#a an$ an#an$ sarilin$

a"a#.

Naa$astos an$ o"pan#a n$ "$a su"usuno!7



&"er$enc# an! !octor fee P:1).

Me!ecines 2sic 3 an! others /1:.=

>ibi$#an si#a n$ o"pan#a n$ Si#a" na ara% na libren$ saho! han$$an$

"atan$$al an$ tahi n$ an#an$ a"a#.

Tatan$$apin ni#a an$ saho! ni#an$ ani" na ara%, "ula ia/ n$ 'ul#o at ia=

n$ ($osto, 1**.

(n$ o"pan#a an$ "a$baba#a! n$ lahat n$ $astos pa$tan$$al n$ tahi n$

an#an$ a"a#, pa$atapos n$ si#a" na ara% "ula ia0 n$ ($osto.

Sa lahat n$ naasulat sa itaas, hinihin$i n$ o"pan#a an$ an#an$ resi$nas#on,

asa"a n$ an#an$ co"fir"as#on at pa$a#on na an$ lahat sa itaas a# totoo.

Naiintin!ihan o an$ lahat n$ naasulat sa itaas, at an$ lahat n$ ito a# ain$

pa$aasala sa hin!i pa$suno! sa alintuntunin n$ o"pan#a.

2S$!.3

Roberto

Capili

Roberto

Capili

On (u$ust /, 1** priate respon!ent eecute! a uitclai" an! Release in faor of petitioner for an! in consi!eration of the su" of P1,*10.:*. 4

Three !a#s after, or on (u$ust 8, 1**, priate respon!ent for"all# file! before the N6RC

(rbitration >ranch, National Capital Re$ion a co"plaint for ille$al !is"issal an! pa#"ent of other

"onetar# benefits.

On October *, 1**1, the 6abor (rbiter ren!ere! his !ecision fin!in$ the ter"ination of priate

respon!ent as ali! an! !is"issin$ the "one# clai" for lac of "erit. The !ispositie portion of

the rulin$ rea!s7

?'&R&FOR&, pre"ises consi!ere!, the ter"ination is ali! an! for cause, an!the "one# clai"s !is"isse! for lac of "erit.

The respon!ent ho%eer is or!ere! to pa# the co"plainant the a"ount of

P). as financial assistance.

SO ORD&R&D. /

6abor (rbiter Patricio P. 6iboon $ae t%o reasons for rulin$ that the !is"issal of Roberto

Capilian %as ali!. First, priate respon!ent %ho %as hire! as an apprentice iolate! the ter"s of

their a$ree"ent %hen he acte! %ith $ross ne$li$ence resultin$ in the in-ur# not onl# to hi"self

but also to his fello% %orer. Secon!, priate respon!ent ha! sho%n that +he !oes not hae the



proper attitu!e in e"plo#"ent particularl# the han!lin$ of "achines %ithout authorit# an! proper

trainin$.

On ;ul# 08, 1**/, the National 6abor Relations Co""ission issue! an or!er reersin$ the

!ecision of the 6abor (rbiter, the !ispositie portion of %hich rea!s7

?'&R&FOR&, the appeale! !ecision is hereb# set asi!e. The respon!ent is

hereb# !irecte! to reinstate co"plainant to his %or last perfor"e! %ith

bac%a$es co"pute! fro" the ti"e his %a$es %ere %ithhel! up to the ti"e he is

actuall# reinstate!. The (rbiter of ori$in is hereb# !irecte! to further hear

co"plainant<s "one# clai"s an! to !ispose the" on the basis of la% an!

ei!ence obtainin$.

SO ORD&R&D.

The N6RC !eclare! that priate respon!ent %as a re$ular e"plo#ee of petitioner b#

rulin$ thus7

(s correctl# pointe! out b# the co"plainant, %e cannot un!erstan! ho% an

apprenticeship a$ree"ent file! %ith the Depart"ent of 6abor onl# on ;une :,

1** coul! be ali!l# use! b# the 6abor (rbiter as basis to conclu!e that the

co"plainant %as hire! b# respon!ent as a plain +apprentice+ on Ma# 05, 1**.

Clearl#, therefore, the co"plainant %as respon!ent<s re$ular e"plo#ee un!er

(rticle 05 of the 6abor Co!e, as earl# as Ma# 05,1**, %ho thus en-o#e! the

securit# of tenure $uarantee! in Section /, (rticle III of our 1*5: Constitution.

The co"plainant bein$ for ille$al !is"issal 2a"on$ others3 it then behooes upon

respon!ent, pursuant to (rt. 00:2b3 an! as rule! in &!%in Gesul$on s. N6RC, et

al. 2G.R. No. */=*, March ), 1**/, /r! Di., Feliciano, ( .3 to proe that the

!is"issal of co"plainant %as for a ali! cause. (bsent such proof, %e cannot but

rule that the co"plainant %as ille$all# !is"isse!. 2

On ;anuar# 05, 1**=, 6abor (rbiter 6iboon calle! for a conference at %hich onl# priate

respon!ent<s representatie %as present.

On (pril 00, 1**=, a ?rit of &ecution %as issue!, %hich rea!s7

NO?, T'&R&FOR&, fin!in$ "erit in Hpriate respon!ent<s Motion for Issuance of the ?rit, #ou are hereb# co""an!e! to procee! to the pre"ises of Hpetitioner

Nitto &nterprises an! ;o# Foster locate! at No. l := (raneta (enue, Portero,

Malabon, Metro Manila or at an# other places %here their properties are locate!

an! effect the reinstate"ent of herein Hpriate respon!ent to his %or last

perfor"e! or at the option of the respon!ent b# pa#roll reinstate"ent.

Jou are also to collect the a"ount of P100,8*.5) representin$ his bac%a$es as

calle! for in the !ispositie portion, an! turn oer such a"ount to this Office for

proper !isposition.

Petitioner file! a "otion for reconsi!eration but the sa"e %as !enie!.



'ence, the instant petition B for certiorari .

The issues raise! before us are the follo%in$7

I

?'&T'&R OR NOT PA>6IC R&SPOND&NT N6RC COMMITT&D GR(V&

(>AS& OF DISCR&TION IN 'O6DING T'(T PRIV(T& R&SPOND&NT ?(S

NOT (N (PPR&NTIC&.

II

?'&T'&R OR NOT PA>6IC R&SPOND&NT N6RC COMMITT&D GR(V&

(>AS& OF DISCR&TION IN 'O6DING T'(T P&TITION&R '(D NOT

(D&A(T&6J PROV&N T'& &IST&NC& OF ( V(6ID C(AS& IN

T&RMIN(TING T'& S&RVIC& OF PRIV(T& R&SPOND&NT.

?e fin! no "erit in the petition.

Petitioner assails the N6RC<s fin!in$ that priate respon!ent Roberto Capili cannot plainl# be

consi!ere! an apprentice since no apprenticeship pro$ra" ha! #et been file! an! approe! at

the ti"e the a$ree"ent %as eecute!.

Petitioner further insists that the "ere si$nin$ of the apprenticeship a$ree"ent alrea!#

establishe! an e"plo#erapprentice relationship.

Petitioner<s ar$u"ent is erroneous.

The la% is clear on this "atter. (rticle 81 of the 6abor Co!e proi!es7

Contents of apprenticeship a$ree"ent. B (pprenticeship a$ree"ents, inclu!in$

the "ain rates of apprentices, shall confor" to the rules issue! b# the Minister of

6abor an! &"plo#"ent. The perio! of apprenticeship shall not ecee! si

"onths. (pprenticeship a$ree"ents proi!in$ for %a$e rates belo% the le$al

"ini"u" %a$e, %hich in no case shall start belo% :)E per cent of the applicable

"ini"u" %a$e, "a# be entere! into onl# in accor!ance %ith apprenticeship

pro$ra" !ul# approe! b# the Minister of 6abor an! &"plo#"ent. The Ministr#

shall !eelop stan!ar! "o!el pro$ra"s of apprenticeship. 2e"phasis supplie!3

In the case at bench, the apprenticeship a$ree"ent bet%een petitioner an! priate respon!ent

%as eecute! on Ma# 05, 1** alle$e!l# e"plo#in$ the latter as an apprentice in the tra!e of

+care "aerK"ol!er.+ On the sa"e !ate, an apprenticeship pro$ra" %as prepare! b# petitioner

an! sub"itte! to the Depart"ent of 6abor an! &"plo#"ent. 'o%eer, the apprenticeship

($ree"ent %as file! onl# on ;une :, 1**. Not%ithstan!in$ the absence of approal b# the

Depart"ent of 6abor an! &"plo#"ent, the apprenticeship a$ree"ent %as enforce! the !a# it

%as si$ne!.

>ase! on the ei!ence before us, petitioner !i! not co"pl# %ith the re9uire"ents of the la%. It is

"an!ate! that apprenticeship a$ree"ents entere! into b# the e"plo#er an! apprentice shall be



entere! onl# in accor!ance %ith the apprenticeship pro$ra" !ul# approe! b# the Minister of

6abor an! &"plo#"ent.

Prior approal b# the Depart"ent of 6abor an! &"plo#"ent of the propose! apprenticeship

pro$ra" is, therefore, a con!ition sine 'uo non before an apprenticeship a$ree"ent can be

ali!l# entere! into.

The act of filin$ the propose! apprenticeship pro$ra" %ith the Depart"ent of 6abor an!

&"plo#"ent is a preli"inar# step to%ar!s its final approal an! !oes not instantaneousl# $ie

rise to an e"plo#erapprentice relationship.

(rticle ): of the 6abor Co!e proi!es that the State ai"s to +establish a national apprenticeship

pro$ra" throu$h the participation of e"plo#ers, %orers an! $oern"ent an! non$oern"ent

a$encies+ an! +to establish apprenticeship stan!ar!s for the protection of apprentices.+ To

translate such ob-ecties into eistence, prior approal of the DO6& to an# apprenticeship

pro$ra" has to be secure! as a con!ition sine 'ua non before an# such apprenticeship

a$ree"ent can be full# enforce!. The role of the DO6& in apprenticeship pro$ra"s an!

a$ree"ents cannot be !ebase!.

'ence, since the apprenticeship a$ree"ent bet%een petitioner an! priate respon!ent has no

force an! effect in the absence of a ali! apprenticeship pro$ra" !ul# approe! b# the DO6&,

priate respon!ent<s assertion that he %as hire! not as an apprentice but as a !elier# bo#

2+ar$a!or+ or +pahinante+3 !eseres cre!ence. 'e shoul! ri$htl# be consi!ere! as a re$ular

e"plo#ee of petitioner as !efine! b# (rticle 05 of the 6abor Co!e7

(rt. 05. Re$ular an! Casual &"plo#"ent. B #/e pro!isions of written

agreement to t/e contrary notwit/standing and regardless of t/e oral agreementof t/e parties, an employment s/all e deemed to e regular w/ere t/e employee

/as een engaged to perform acti!ities w/ic/ are usually necessary or desirale

in t/e usual usiness or trade of t/e employer, ecept %here the e"plo#"ent has

been fie! for a specific pro-ect or un!ertain$ the co"pletion or ter"ination of

%hich has been !eter"ine! at the ti"e of the en$a$e"ent of the e"plo#ee or

%here the %or or serices to be perfor"e! is seasonal in nature an! the

e"plo#"ent is for the !uration of the season.

(n e"plo#"ent shall be !ee"e! to be casual if it is not coere! b# the prece!in$

para$raph70ro!ided , That, an# e"plo#ee %ho has ren!ere! at least one #ear of

serice, %hether such serice is continuous or broen, shall be consi!ere! are$ular e"plo#ee %ith respect to the actiit# in %hich he is e"plo#e! an! his

e"plo#"ent shall continue %hile such actiit# eists. 2&"phasis supplie!3

an! pursuant to the constitutional "an!ate to +protect the ri$hts of %orers an! pro"ote

their %elfare.+ 9

Petitioner further ar$ues that, there is a ali! cause for the !is"issal of priate respon!ent.

There is an abun!ance of cases %herein the Court rule! that the t%in re9uire"ents of !ue

process, substantie an! proce!ural, "ust be co"plie! %ith, before ali! !is"issal

eists. 10 ?ithout %hich, the !is"issal beco"es oi!.



The t%in re9uire"ents of notice an! hearin$ constitute the essential ele"ents of !ue process.

This si"pl# "eans that the e"plo#er shall affor! the %orer a"ple opportunit# to be hear! an!

to !efen! hi"self %ith the assistance of his representatie, if he so !esires.

("ple opportunit# connotes eer# in! of assistance that "ana$e"ent "ust accor! the

e"plo#ee to enable hi" to prepare a!e9uatel# for his !efense inclu!in$ le$al representation. 11

(s hel! in the case of 0epsi+ola )ottling +o., Inc. !. -L1+ 7 1

The la% re9uires that the e"plo#er "ust furnish the %orer sou$ht to be

!is"isse! %ith t%o 203 %ritten notices before ter"ination of e"plo#ee can be

le$all# effecte!7 213 notice %hich apprises the e"plo#ee of the particular acts or

o"issions for %hich his !is"issal is sou$ht4 an! 203 the subse9uent notice %hich

infor"s the e"plo#ee of the e"plo#er<s !ecision to !is"iss hi" 2Sec. 1/, >P 1/4

Sec. 08 Rule IV, >oo V, Rules an! Re$ulations I"ple"entin$ the 6abor Co!e

as a"en!e!3. Failure to co"pl# %ith the re9uire"ents taints the !is"issal %ith

ille$alit#. This proce!ure is "an!ator#, in the absence of %hich, an# -u!$"ent

reache! b# "ana$e"ent is oi! an! in eistent 2Tin$son, ;r. s. N6RC, 15)

SCR( =*5 H1**4 National Serice Corp. s. N6RC, 185 SCR( 1004 Ruff# s.

N6RC. 150 SCR( /8) H1**3.

The fact is priate respon!ent file! a case of ille$al !is"issal %ith the 6abor (rbiter onl# three

!a#s after he %as "a!e to si$n a uitclai", a clear in!ication that such resi$nation %as not

oluntar# an! !eliberate.

Priate respon!ent aerre! that he %as actuall# e"plo#e! b# petitioner as a !elier# bo#

2+ar$a!or+ or +pahinante+3.

'e further asserte! that petitioner +stron$ar"e!+ hi" into si$nin$ the afore"entione!

resi$nation letter an! 9uitclai" %ithout eplainin$ to hi" the contents thereof. Petitioner "a!e it

clear to hi" that an#%a#, he !i! not hae a choice. 13

Petitioner cannot !is$uise the su""ar# !is"issal of priate respon!ent b# orchestratin$ the

latter<s alle$e! resi$nation an! subse9uent eecution of a uitclai" an! Release. ( -u!icious

ea"ination of both eents belies an# spontaneit# on priate respon!ent<s part.

?'&R&FOR&, fin!in$ no abuse of !iscretion co""itte! b# public respon!ent National 6abor

Relations Co""ission, the appeale! !ecision is hereb# (FFIRM&D.

SO ORD&R&D.

0adilla, Da!ide, (r., )ellosillo and 2ermosisima, (r., ((., concur.

oot"ote+

1 1ollo, pp. 101).

0 Recor!s, p 10.

/ Id ., at 1/.



= Id ., at 1=.

) Id ., at .=:=5.

8 Id ., p. =:.

: 1ollo, pp. 1=1).

5 Iid .

* Sec. 15, (rt. II, The 1*5: Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.

1 Centur# Tetile Mills, Inc. . N6RC, 181 SCR( )05 21*5534 Gol! Cit#

Inte$rate! Port Serices, Inc. . N6RC, 15* SCR( 511 21**34 L%i%a#

&n$ineerin$ ?ors . N6RC, 1*) SCR( )08 21**13.

11 (biera . National 6abor Relations Co""ission, 01) SCR( =:8

21**03.

10 01 SCR( 0:: 21**03.

1/ Ori$inal Recor!, p. /*.

C(S& /


SUPREME COURT

Manila

T'IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. /11 A565+t 1, 199

ILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE, petitioner,

s.

HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. ENRI&UE P. SUPLICO, )" 7)+ (!p!()t8 !+

5#6e o: t7e Re6)o"!; Tr)!; Co5rt, %r!"(7 <I=, Ro>!+ C)t8 !"# POTENCIANO APUNAN,

SR., respon!ents.

)edona & )edona Law Office for petitioner.

1/odora $. 3apunan for pri!ate respondents.



GUTIERRE-, R., J.:

The priate respon!ents, heirs of the late Potenciano Lapunan, see reconsi!eration of the

!ecision ren!ere! b# this Court on October 18, 1** 2Fila"er Christian Institute . Court of

(ppeals, 1* SCR( =::3 reie%in$ the appellate court<s conclusion that there eists an

e"plo#ere"plo#ee relationship bet%een the petitioner an! its co!efen!ant Funtecha. TheCourt rule! that the petitioner is not liable for the in-uries cause! b# Funtecha on the $roun!s

that the latter %as not an authori@e! !rier for %hose acts the petitioner shall be !irectl# an!

pri"aril# ans%erable, an! that Funtecha %as "erel# a %orin$ scholar %ho, un!er Section 1=,

Rule , >oo III of the Rules an! Re$ulations I"ple"entin$ the 6abor Co!e is not consi!ere! an

e"plo#ee of the petitioner.

The priate respon!ents assert that the circu"stances obtainin$ in the present case call for the

application of (rticle 015 of the Ciil Co!e since Funtecha is no !oubt an e"plo#ee of the

petitioner. The priate respon!ents "aintain that un!er (rticle 015 an in-ure! part# shall hae

recourse a$ainst the serant as %ell as the petitioner for %ho", at the ti"e of the inci!ent, the

serant %as perfor"in$ an act in furtherance of the interest an! for the benefit of the petitioner.

Funtecha alle$e!l# !i! not steal the school -eep nor use it for a -o# ri!e %ithout the no%le!$e of

the school authorities.

(fter a reea"ination of the la%s releant to the facts foun! b# the trial court an! the appellate

court, the Court reconsi!ers its !ecision. ?e reinstate the Court of (ppeals< !ecision penne! b#

the late ;ustice Desi!erio ;ura!o an! concurre! in b# ;ustices ;ose C. Ca"pos, ;r. an! Serafin

&. Ca"ilon. (ppl#in$ Ciil Co!e proisions, the appellate court affir"e! the trial court !ecision

%hich or!ere! the pa#"ent of the P0,. liabilit# in the enith Insurance Corporation polic#,

P1,. "oral !a"a$es, P=,. liti$ation an! actual epenses, an! P/,. attorne#<s

fees.

It is un!ispute! that Funtecha %as a %orin$ stu!ent, bein$ a partti"e -anitor an! a scholar of

petitioner Fila"er. 'e %as, in relation to the school, an e"plo#ee een if he %as assi$ne! to

clean the school pre"ises for onl# t%o 203 hours in the "ornin$ of each school !a#.

'ain$ a stu!ent !rier<s license, Funtecha re9ueste! the !rier, (llan Masa, an! %as allo%e!,

to tae oer the ehicle %hile the latter %as on his %a# ho"e one late afternoon. It is si$nificant

to note that the place %here (llan lies is also the house of his father, the school presi!ent,

($ustin Masa. Moreoer, it is also the house %here Funtecha %as allo%e! free boar! %hile he

%as a stu!ent of Fila"er Christian Institute.

(llan Masa turne! oer the ehicle to Funtecha onl# after !riin$ !o%n a roa!, ne$otiatin$ a

sharp !an$erous curb, an! ie%in$ that the roa! %as clear. 2TSN, (pril =, 1*5/, pp. :5:*3

(ccor!in$ to (llan<s testi"on#, a fast "oin$ truc %ith $larin$ li$hts nearl# hit the" so that the#

ha! to s%ere to the ri$ht to aoi! a collision. Apon s%erin$, the# hear! a soun! as if

so"ethin$ ha! bu"pe! a$ainst the ehicle, but the# !i! not stop to chec. (ctuall#, the Pino#

-eep s%ere! to%ar!s the pe!estrian, Potenciano Lapunan %ho %as %alin$ in his lane in the

!irection a$ainst ehicular traffic, an! hit hi". (llan affir"e! that Funtecha follo%e! his a!ise to

s%ere to the ri$ht. 2Iid ., p. :*3 (t the ti"e of the inci!ent 287/ P.M.3 in Roas Cit#, the -eep ha!

onl# one functionin$ hea!li$ht.

(llan testifie! that he %as the !rier an! at the sa"e ti"e a securit# $uar! of the petitioner

school. 'e further sai! that there %as no specific ti"e for hi" to be off!ut# an! that after !riin$



the stu!ents ho"e at )7 in the afternoon, he still ha! to $o bac to school an! then !rie ho"e

usin$ the sa"e ehicle.

Driin$ the ehicle to an! fro" the house of the school presi!ent %here both (llan an! Funtecha

resi!e is an act in furtherance of the interest of the petitionerschool. (llan<s -ob !e"an!s that he

!rie ho"e the school -eep so he can use it to fetch stu!ents in the "ornin$ of the net school!a#.

It is in!ubitable un!er the circu"stances that the school presi!ent ha! no%le!$e that the -eep

%as routinel# !rien ho"e for the sai! purpose. Moreoer, it is not i"probable that the school

presi!ent also ha! no%le!$e of Funtecha<s possession of a stu!ent !rier<s license an! his

!esire to un!er$o !riin$ lessons !urin$ the ti"e that he %as not in his classroo"s.

In learnin$ ho% to !rie %hile tain$ the ehicle ho"e in the !irection of (llan<s house, Funtecha

!efinitel# %as not hain$ a -o# ri!e. Funtecha %as not !riin$ for the purpose of his en-o#"ent or

for a +frolic of his o%n+ but ulti"atel#, for the serice for %hich the -eep %as inten!e! b# the

petitioner school. 2See 6. >attistoni . Tho"as, Can SC 1==, 1 D.6.R. )::, 5 (6R :00 H1*/04

See also (ssociation of >aptists for ?orl! &an$elis", Inc. . Fiel!"en<s Insurance Co., Inc. 10=

SCR( 815 H1*5/3. Therefore, the Court is constraine! to conclu!e that the act of Funtecha in

tain$ oer the steerin$ %heel %as one !one for an! in behalf of his e"plo#er for %hich act the

petitionerschool cannot !en# an# responsibilit# b# ar$uin$ that it %as !one be#on! the scope of

his -anitorial !uties. The clause +%ithin the scope of their assi$ne! tass+ for purposes of raisin$

the presu"ption of liabilit# of an e"plo#er, inclu!es an# act !one b# an e"plo#ee, in furtherance

of the interests of the e"plo#er or for the account of the e"plo#er at the ti"e of the infliction of

the in-ur# or !a"a$e. 2Manuel Casa!a, 1* Va *8, )* S& 0! =: H1*)3 &en if so"eho%, the

e"plo#ee !riin$ the ehicle !erie! so"e benefit fro" the act, the eistence of a presu"ptie

liabilit# of the e"plo#er is !eter"ine! b# ans%erin$ the 9uestion of %hether or not the serant%as at the ti"e of the acci!ent perfor"in$ an# act in furtherance of his "aster<s business.

2Lohl"an . '#lan!, 01 N? 8=/, ) (6R 1=/: H1*084 ;a"eson . Gaett, :1 P 0! */: H1*/:3

Section 1=, Rule , >oo III of the Rules i"ple"entin$ the 6abor Co!e, on %hich the petitioner

anchors its !efense, %as pro"ul$ate! b# the Secretar# of 6abor an! &"plo#"ent onl# for the

purpose of a!"inisterin$ an! enforcin$ the proisions of the 6abor Co!e on con!itions of

e"plo#"ent. Particularl#, Rule of >oo III proi!es $ui!elines on the "anner b# %hich the

po%ers of the 6abor Secretar# shall be eercise!4 on %hat recor!s shoul! be ept4 "aintaine!

an! presere!4 on pa#roll4 an! on the eclusion of %orin$ scholars fro", an! inclusion of

resi!ent ph#sicians in the e"plo#"ent coera$e as far as co"pliance %ith the substantie labor

proisions on %orin$ con!itions, rest perio!s, an! %a$es, is concerne!.

In other %or!s, Rule is "erel# a $ui!e to the enforce"ent of the substantie la% on labor. The

Court, thus, "aes the !istinction an! so hol!s that Section 1=, Rule , >oo III of the Rules is

not the !ecisie la% in a ciil suit for !a"a$es institute! b# an in-ure! person !urin$ a ehicular

acci!ent a$ainst a %orin$ stu!ent of a school an! a$ainst the school itself.

The present case !oes not !eal %ith a labor !ispute on con!itions of e"plo#"ent bet%een an

alle$e! e"plo#ee an! an alle$e! e"plo#er. It inoes a clai" brou$ht b# one for !a"a$es for

in-ur# cause! b# the patentl# ne$li$ent acts of a person, a$ainst both !oere"plo#ee an! his

e"plo#er. 'ence, the reliance on the i"ple"entin$ rule on labor to !isre$ar! the pri"ar# liabilit#

of an e"plo#er un!er (rticle 015 of the Ciil Co!e is "isplace!. (n i"ple"entin$ rule on labor



cannot be use! b# an e"plo#er as a shiel! to aoi! liabilit# un!er the substantie proisions of

the Ciil Co!e.

There is ei!ence to sho% that there eists in the present case an etracontractual obli$ation

arisin$ fro" the ne$li$ence or recless i"pru!ence of a person +%hose acts or o"issions are

i"putable, b# a le$al fiction, to other2s3 %ho are in a position to eercise an absolute or li"ite!control oer 2hi"3.+ 2>ahia . 6iton-ua an! 6e#nes, / Phil. 80= H1*1)3

Funtecha is an e"plo#ee of petitioner Fila"er. 'e nee! not hae an official appoint"ent for a

!rier<s position in or!er that the petitioner "a# be hel! responsible for his $rossl# ne$li$ent act,

it bein$ sufficient that the act of !riin$ at the ti"e of the inci!ent %as for the benefit of the

petitioner. 'ence, the fact that Funtecha %as not the school !rier or %as not actin$ %ithin the

scope of his -anitorial !uties !oes not reliee the petitioner of the bur!en of rebuttin$ the

presu"ption 4uris tantum that there %as ne$li$ence on its part either in the selection of a serant

or e"plo#ee, or in the superision oer hi". The petitioner has faile! to sho% proof of its hain$

eercise! the re9uire! !ili$ence of a $oo! father of a fa"il# oer its e"plo#ees Funtecha an!

(llan.

The Court reiterates that superision inclu!es the for"ulation of suitable rules an! re$ulations for

the $ui!ance of its e"plo#ees an! the issuance of proper instructions inten!e! for the protection

of the public an! persons %ith %ho" the e"plo#er has relations throu$h his e"plo#ees. 2>ahia .

6iton-ua an! 6e#nes, supra, at p. 8054 Phoeni Construction, . Inter"e!iate (ppellate Court, 1=5

SCR( /)/ H1*5:3

(n e"plo#er is epecte! to i"pose upon its e"plo#ees the necessar# !iscipline calle! for in the

perfor"ance of an# act in!ispensable to the business an! beneficial to their e"plo#er.

In the present case, the petitioner has not sho%n that it has set forth such rules an! $ui!elines as

%oul! prohibit an# one of its e"plo#ees fro" tain$ control oer its ehicles if one is not the

official !rier or prohibitin$ the !rier an! son of the Fila"er presi!ent fro" authori@in$ another

e"plo#ee to !rie the school ehicle. Further"ore, the petitioner has faile! to proe that it ha!

i"pose! sanctions or %arne! its e"plo#ees a$ainst the use of its ehicles b# persons other than

the !rier.

The petitioner, thus, has an obli$ation to pa# !a"a$es for in-ur# arisin$ fro" the unsille!

"anner b# %hich Funtecha !roe the ehicle. 2Can$co . Manila Railroa! Co., /5 Phil. :85, ::0

H1*153. In the absence of ei!ence that the petitioner ha! eercise! the !ili$ence of a $oo!

father of a fa"il# in the superision of its e"plo#ees, the la% i"poses upon it the icariousliabilit# for acts or o"issions of its e"plo#ees. 2A"ali . >acani, 8* SCR( 08/ H1*:84 Poblete .

Fabros, */ SCR( 0 H1*:*4 Lapalaran >us 6iner . Corona!o, 1:8 SCR( :*0 H1*5*4 Franco .

Inter"e!iate (ppellate Court, 1:5 SCR( //1 H1*5*4 Pantranco North &press, Inc. . >aesa,

1:* SCR( /5= H1*5*3 The liabilit# of the e"plo#er is, un!er (rticle 015, pri"ar# an! soli!ar#.

'o%eer, the e"plo#er shall hae recourse a$ainst the ne$li$ent e"plo#ee for %hateer

!a"a$es are pai! to the heirs of the plaintiff.

It is an a!"itte! fact that the actual !rier of the school -eep, (llan Masa, %as not "a!e a part#

!efen!ant in the ciil case for !a"a$es. This is 9uite un!erstan!able consi!erin$ that as far as

the in-ure! pe!estrian, plaintiff Potenciano Lapunan, %as concerne!, it %as Funtecha %ho %as

the one !riin$ the ehicle an! presu"abl# %as one authori@e! b# the school to !rie. The

plaintiff an! his heirs shoul! not no% be left to suffer %ithout si"ultaneous recourse a$ainst the



petitioner for the conse9uent in-ur# cause! b# a -anitor !oin$ a !riin$ chore for the petitioner

een for a short %hile. For the purpose of recoerin$ !a"a$es un!er the preailin$

circu"stances, it is enou$h that the plaintiff an! the priate respon!ent heirs %ere able to

establish the eistence of e"plo#ere"plo#ee relationship bet%een Funtecha an! petitioner

Fila"er an! the fact that Funtecha %as en$a$e! in an act not for an in!epen!ent purpose of his

o%n but in furtherance of the business of his e"plo#er. ( position of responsibilit# on the part ofthe petitioner has thus been satisfactoril# !e"onstrate!.

?'&R&FOR&, the "otion for reconsi!eration of the !ecision !ate! October 18, 1** is hereb#

GR(NT&D. The !ecision of the respon!ent appellate court affir"in$ the trial court !ecision is

R&INST(T&D.

SO ORD&R&D.

Feliciano, )idin, Da!ide, (r. and 1omero, ((., concur.

+ase no. 5

THIRD DIVISION

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

MARITES BERNARDO, ELVIRA GO DIAMANTE, REBECCA E.

DAVID, DAVID P. PASCUAL, RAUEL ESTILLER, ALBERT

!ALLARE, EDMUND M. CORTE", JOSELITO O. AGDON

GEORGE P. LIGUTAN JR., CELSO M. #A"AR, ALE$ G.

CORPU", RONALD M. DEL%IN, RO&ENA M. TABAUERO,

CORA"ON C. DELOS RE#ES, ROBERT G. NOORA, MILAGROS

O. LEUIGAN, ADRIANA %. TATLONG!ARI, I'ECABANDUCOS, COCO# NOBELLO, DORENDA

CANTIMBU!AN, ROBERT MARCELO, LILIBET! .

MARMOLEJO, JOSE E. SALES, ISABEL MAMAUAG, VIOLETA

G. MONTES, ALBINO TECSON, MELOD# V. GRUELA,

BERNADET! D. AGERO, C#NT!IA DE VERA, LANI R.

CORTE", MA. ISABEL B. CONCEPCION, DINDO VALERIO,

"ENAIDA MATA, ARIEL DEL PILAR, MARGARET CECILIA

CANO"A, T!ELMA SEBASTIAN, MA. JEANETTE CERVANTES,

JEANNIE RAMIL, RO"AIDA PASCUAL, PIN'# BALOLOA,

ELI"ABET! VENTURA, GRACE S. PARDO ( RICO



TIMOSA, petitionersvs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION ( %AR EAST BAN' AND TRUST

COMPAN#, respondents.

D E C I S I O NPANGANIBAN, J.:

The Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that qualified disabled persons be

granted the same terms and onditions of emplo!ment as qualified able"bodied

emplo!ees# One the! ha$e attained the status of regular %or&ers' the! should be aorded all

the benefits granted b! la%' not%ithstanding %ritten or $erbal ontrats to the ontrar!# This

treatment is rooted not merel! on harit! or aommodation' but on (ustie for all#

T)* C+*

Challenged in the Petition for Certiorari)*+ before us is the ,une -.' *//0 Deision)-+ of

the National 1abor Relations Commission 2N1RC3' )4+ %hih affirmed the 5ugust' -- *//6

ruling of 1abor 5rbiter Cornelio 1# 1insangan# The labor arbiters Deision disposed as

follo%s7)6+

8H9R9:OR9' (udgment is hereb! rendered dismissing the abo$e"mentionedomplaint for la& of merit#

5lso assailed is the 5ugust 6' *//0 Resolution )0+ of the N1RC' %hih denied the Motion for

Reonsideration#

T)* %+-

The fats %ere summari;ed b! the N1RC in this %ise7 )<+

Complainants numbering 64 2p# *=<' Reords3 are deaf"mutes %ho %ere hired on

$arious periods from */>> to *//4 b! respondent :ar 9ast ?an& and Trust Co# as

Mone! Sorters and Counters through a uniforml! %orded agreement alled9mplo!ment Contrat for Handiapped 8or&ers# 2pp# <> @ </' Reords3 The fullteAt of said agreement is quoted belo%7

9MP1OBM9NT CONTR5CT :OR H5NDIC5PP9D 8OR9RS

This Contrat' entered into b! and bet%een7

:5R 95ST ?5N 5ND TRST COMP5NB' a uni$ersal ban&ing orporationdul! organi;ed and eAisting under and b! $irtue of the la%s of the Philippines' %ith

business address at :9?TC ?uilding' Muralla' Intramuros' Manila' represented

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/122917.htm#_edn1
















herein b! its 5ssistant Vie President' MR# :1OR9NDO E# M5R5N5N'2hereinafter referred to as the ?5N3F

" and "

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG' GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG !ears old' of legal age' GGGGGGGGGGGGG'

and residing at GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 2hereinafter referred to as the29MP1OB993#

8ITN9SS9TH7 That

8H9R95S' the ?5N' ogni;ant of its soial responsibilit!' reali;es that there isa need to pro$ide disabled and handiapped persons gainful emplo!ment and

opportunities to reali;e their potentials' uplift their soio"eonomi %ell being and

%elfare and ma&e them produti$e' self"reliant and useful iti;ens to enable themto full! integrate in the mainstream of soiet!F

8H9R95S' there are ertain positions in the ?5N %hih ma! be filled"up b!

disabled and handiapped persons' partiularl! deaf"mutes' and the ?5N ha)s+ been approahed b! some i$i"minded iti;ens and authori;ed go$ernment

agenies )regarding+ the possibilit! of hiring handiapped %or&ers for these positionsF

8H9R95S' the 9MP1OB99 is one of those handiapped %or&ers %ho )%ere+

reommended for possible emplo!ment %ith the ?5NF

NO8' TH9R9:OR9' for and in onsideration of the foregoing premises and inompliane %ith 5rtile >. of the 1abor Code of the Philippines as amended' the

?5N and the 9MP1OB99 ha$e entered into this 9mplo!ment Contrat asfollo%s7

*# The ?5N agrees to emplo! and train the 9MP1OB99' and the 9MP1OB99agrees to diligentl! and faithfull! %or& %ith the ?5N'

as Mone! Sorter and Counter#

-# The 9MP1OB99 shall perform among others' the follo%ing duties and

responsibilities7

i Sort out bills aording to olorF

ii# Count eah denomination per hundred' either manuall! or %ith the aid of a

ounting mahineF

iii# 8rap and label bills per hundredF

i$# Put the %rapped bills into bundlesF and



$# Submit bundled bills to the ban& teller for $erifiation#

4# The 9MP1OB99 shall undergo a training period of one 2*3 month' after %hih

the ?5N shall determine %hether or not heshe should be allo%ed to finish theremaining term of this Contrat#

6# The 9MP1OB99 shall be entitled to an initial ompensation of P**>#.. per da!'sub(et to ad(ustment in the sole (udgment of the ?5N' pa!able e$er! *0 th and

end of the month#

0# The regular %or& shedule of the 9MP1OB99 shall be fi$e 203 da!s per %ee&'

from Monda!s thru :rida!s' at eight 2>3 hours a da!# The 9MP1OB99 ma! berequired to perform o$ertime %or& as irumstane ma! %arrant' for %hih

o$ertime %or& heshe )shall+ be paid an additional ompensation of *-0 of his

dail! rate if performed during ordinar! da!s and *4. if performed duringSaturda! or )a+ rest da!#

<# The 9MP1OB99 shall li&e%ise be entitled to the follo%ing benefits7

i# Proportionate *4th month pa! based on his basi dail! %age#

ii# :i$e 203 da!s inenti$e lea$e#

iii# SSS premium pa!ment#

=# The 9MP1OB99 binds himselfherself to abide )b!+ and ompl! %ith all the?5N Rules and Regulations and Poliies' and to ondut himselfherself in a

manner eApeted of all emplo!ees of the ?5N#

># The 9MP1OB99 a&no%ledges the fat that heshe had been emplo!ed under a

speial emplo!ment program of the ?5N' for %hih reason the standard hiringrequirements of the ?5N %ere not applied in hisher ase# Consequentl!' the

9MP1OB99 a&no%ledges and aepts the fat that the terms and onditions ofthe emplo!ment generall! obser$ed b! the ?5N %ith respet to the ?5Ns

regular emplo!ee are not appliable to the 9MP1OB99' and that therefore' theterms and onditions of the 9MP1OB99s emplo!ment %ith the ?5N shall be

go$erned solel! and eAlusi$el! b! this Contrat and b! the appliable rules andregulations that the Department of 1abor and 9mplo!ment ma! issue in onnetion

%ith the emplo!ment of disabled and handiapped %or&ers# More speifiall!' the9MP1OB99 hereb! a&no%ledges that the pro$isions of ?oo& SiA of the 1abor

Code of the Philippines as amended' partiularl! on regulation of emplo!ment andseparation pa! are not appliable to himher#

/# The 9mplo!ment Contrat shall be for a period of siA 2<3 months or from GGGG

to GGGG unless earlier terminated b! the ?5N for an! (ust or reasonable



ause# 5n! ontinuation or eAtension of this Contrat shall be in %riting andtherefore this Contrat %ill automatiall! eApire at the end of its terms unless

rene%ed in %riting b! the ?5N#

IN 8ITN9SS 8H9R9O:' the parties' ha$e hereunto affiAed their signature)s+ this

GGGG da! of GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG' GGGGGGGGGGGG at Intramuros' Manila'Philippines#

In */>>' t%o 2-3 deaf"mutes %ere hired under this 5greementF in */>/ another t%o2-3F in *//.' nineteen 2*/3F in *//* siA 2<3F in *//-' siA 2<3 and in *//4' t%ent!"

one 2-*3# Their emplo!ment)s+ %ere rene%ed e$er! siA months suh that b! thetime this ase arose' there %ere fift!"siA 20<3 deaf"mutes %ho %ere emplo!ed b!

respondent under the said emplo!ment agreement# The last one %as ThelmaMalindo! %ho %as emplo!ed in *//- and %hose ontrat eApired on ,ul! *//4#

A A A A A A A A A

Dislaiming that omplainants %ere regular emplo!ees' respondent :ar 9ast ?an&and Trust Compan! maintained that omplainants %ho are a speial lass of

%or&ers the hearing impaired emplo!ees %ere hired temporaril! under )a+ speialemplo!ment arrangement %hih %as a result of o$ertures made b! some i$i and

politial personalities to the respondent ?an&F that omplainant)s+ %ere hired dueto pa&iusap %hih must be onsidered in the light of the onteAt of the respondent?an&s orporate philosoph! as %ell as its areer and %or&ing en$ironment %hih

is to maintain and strengthen a orps of professionals trained and qualified offiersand regular emplo!ees %ho are baalaureate degree holders from eAellent

shools %hih is an unbending poli! in the hiring of regular emplo!eesF that inaddition to this' training ontinues so that the regular emplo!ee gro%s in the

orporate ladderF that the idea of hiring handiapped %or&ers %as aeptable tothem onl! on a speial arrangement basisF that it adopted the speial program to

help tide o$er a group of handiapped %or&ers suh as deaf"mutes li&e theomplainants %ho ould do manual %or& for the respondent ?an&F that the tas& of

ounting and sorting of bills %hih %as being performed b! tellers ould beassigned to deaf"mutesF that the ounting and sorting of mone! are tellering %or&s

%hih %ere al%a!s logiall! and naturall! part and parel of the tellers normalfuntionsF that from the beginning there ha$e been no separate items in the

respondent ?an& plantilla for sorters or ountersF that the tellers themsel$es alread!did the sorting and ounting hore as a regular feature and integral part of their

duties 2p# /=' Reords3F that through the pa&iusap of 5rturo ?or(al' the tellers %ererelie$ed of this tas& of ounting and sorting bills in fa$or of deaf"mutes %ithout

reating ne% positions as there is no position either in the respondent or in an!other ban& in the Philippines %hih deals %ith purel! ounting and sorting of bills

in ban&ing operations#

Petitioners speified %hen eah of them %as hired and dismissed' $i;7 )=+





NAME O% PETITIONER &OR'PLACE D+* !/0* D+* D//*

*# M5RIT9S ?9RN5RDO Intramuros *- NOV /. *= NOV /4

-# 91VIR5 EO DI5M5NT9 Intramuros -6 ,5N /. ** ,5N /6

4# R9?9CC5 9# D5VID Intramuros *< 5PR /. -4 OCT /4

6# D5VID P# P5SC51 ?el"5ir *0 OCT >> -* NOV /6

0# R5J91 9STI119R Intramuros - ,1 /- 6 ,5N /6

<# 51?9RT H5115R9 8est 6 ,5N /* / ,5N /6

=# 9DMND M# CORT9K ?el"5ir *0 ,5N /* 4 D9C /4

># ,OS91ITO O# 5EDON Intramuros 0 NOV /. *= NOV /4

/# E9ORE9 P# 1IET5N' ,R# Intramuros < S9PT >/ */ ,5N /6

*.# C91SO M# B5K5R Intramuros > :9? /4 > 5E /4

**# 519L E# CORPK Intramuros *0 :9? /4 *0 5E /4

*-# RON51D M# D91:IN Intramuros -- :9? /4 -- 5E /4

*4# RO89N5 M# T5?5J9RO Intramuros -- :9? /4 -- 5E /4

*6# COR5KON C# D91OS R9B9S Intramuros > :9? /4 > 5E /4

*0# RO?9RT E# NOOR5 Intramuros *0 :9? /4 *0 5E /4

*<# MI15EROS O# 19JIE5N Intramuros * :9? /4 * 5E /4

*=# 5DRI5N5 :# T5T1ONEH5RI Intramuros -- ,5N /4 -- ,1 /4

*># I9 C5?5NDCOS Intramuros -6 :9? /4 -6 5E /4

*/# COCOB NO?911O Intramuros -- :9? /4 -- 5E /4

-.# DOR9ND5 C5TIM?H5N Intramuros *0 :9? /4 *0 5E /4

-*# RO?9RT M5RC91O 8est 4* ,1 /4)>+ * 5E /4

--# 1I1I?9TH J# M5RMO19,O 8est *0 ,N /. -* NOV /4

-4# ,OS9 9# S519S 8est < 5E /- *- OCT /4






-6# IS5?91 M5M55E 8est > M5B /- *. NOV /4

-0# VIO19T5 E# MONT9S Intramuros - :9? /. *0 ,5N /6

-<# 51?INO T9CSON Intramuros = NOV /* *. NOV /4

-=# M91ODB V# ER915 8est -> OCT /* 4 NOV /4

-># ?9RN5D9TH D# 5E9RO 8est */ D9C /. -= D9C /4

-/# CBNTHI5 D9 V9R5 ?el"5ir -< ,N /. 4 D9C /4

4.# 15NI R# CORT9K ?el"5ir *0 OCT >> *. D9C /4

4*# M5# IS5?91 ?# CONC9PCION 8est < S9PT /. < :9? /6

4-# DINDO V519RIO Intramuros 4. M5B /4 4. NOV /4

44# K9N5ID5 M5T5 Intramuros *. :9? /4 *. 5E /4

46# 5RI91 D91 PI15R Intramuros -6 :9? /4 -6 5E /4

40# M5RE5R9T C9CI1I5 C5NOK5 Intramuros -= ,1 /. 6 :9? /6

4<# TH91M5 S9?5STI5N Intramuros *- NOV /. *= NOV /4

4=# M5# ,95N9TT9 C9RV5NT9S 8est < ,N /- = D9C /4

4># ,95NNI9 R5MI1 Intramuros -4 5PR /. *- OCT /4

4/# ROK5ID5 P5SC51 ?el"5ir -. 5PR >/ -/ OCT /4

6.# PINB ?51O1O5 8est 4 ,N /* - D9C /4

6*# 91IK5?9TH V9NTR5 8est *- M5R /. :9? /6 )SIC+

6-# ER5C9 S# P5RDO 8est 6 5PR /. *4 M5R /6

64# RICO TIMOS5 Intramuros -> 5PR /4 -> OCT /4

5s earlier noted' the labor arbiter and' on appeal' the N1RC ruled against herein

petitioners# Hene' this reourse to this Court#)/+

T)* Rul/34 o5 )* NLRC





In affirming the ruling of the labor arbiter that herein petitioners ould not be deemed

regular emplo!ees under 5rtile ->. of the 1abor Code' as amended' Respondent

Commission ratioinated as follo%s7

8e agree that 5rt# ->. is not ontrolling herein# 8e gi$e due redene to the

onlusion that omplainants %ere hired as an aommodation to )the+reommendation of i$i oriented personalities %hose emplo!ment)s+ %ereo$ered b! AAA 9mplo!ment Contrat)s+ %ith speial pro$isions on duration of

ontrat as speified under 5rt# >.# Hene' as orretl! held b! the 1abor 5rbiter aquo' the terms of the ontrat shall be the la% bet%een the parties# )*.+

The N1RC also delared that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons %as not appliable'

onsidering the pre$ailing irumstanesmilieu of the ase#

Iu*

In their Memorandum' petitioners ite the follo%ing grounds in support of their ause7

I# The Honorable Commission ommitted gra$e abuse of disretion in holding that

the petitioners " mone! sorters and ounters %or&ing in a ban& " %ere not regularemplo!ees#

II# The Honorable Commission ommitted gra$e abuse of disretion in holding thatthe emplo!ment ontrats signed and rene%ed b! the petitioners " %hih pro$ide

for a period of siA 2<3 months " %ere $alid#

III# The Honorable Commission ommitted gra$e abuse of disretion in not

appl!ing the pro$isions of the Magna Carta for the Disabled 2Republi 5t No#=-==3' on prosription against disrimination against disabled persons# )**+

In the main' the Court %ill resol$e %hether petitioners ha$e beome regular emplo!ees#

T)/ Cou0 Rul/34

The petition is meritorious# Ho%e$er' onl! the emplo!ees' %ho %or&ed for more than siA

months and %hose ontrats %ere rene%ed are deemed regular# Hene' their dismissal from

emplo!ment %as illegal#

P0*l//3+0y M+*06 Propriety of Certiorari

Respondent :ar 9ast ?an& and Trust Compan! argues that a re$ie% of the findings of

fats of the N1RC is not allo%ed in a petition for ertiorari# Speifiall!' it maintains that the







Court annot pass upon the findings of publi respondents that petitioners %ere not regular

emplo!ees#

True' the Court' as a rule' does not re$ie% the fatual findings of publi respondents in

a certiorari proeeding# In resol$ing %hether the petitioners ha$e beome regular emplo!ees'

%e shall not hange the fats found b! the publi respondent# Our tas& is merel! to determine

%hether the N1RC ommitted gra$e abuse of disretion in appl!ing the la% to the established

fats' as abo$e"quoted from the assailed Deision#

M+/3 Iu*6 Are Petitioners Regular Employees?

Petitioners maintain that the! should be onsidered regular emplo!ees' beause their tas&

as mone! sorters and ounters %as neessar! and desirable to the business of respondent

ban&# The! further allege that their ontrats ser$ed merel! to prelude the appliation of

5rtile ->. and to bar them from beoming regular emplo!ees#

Pri$ate respondent' on the other hand' submits that petitioners %ere hired onl! as speial

%or&ers and should not in an! %a! be onsidered as part of the regular omplement of the

?an&#)*-+ Rather' the! %ere speial %or&ers under 5rtile >. of the 1abor Code# Pri$ate

respondent ontends that it ne$er soliited the ser$ies of petitioners' %hose emplo!ment %as

merel! an aommodation in response to the requests of go$ernment offiials and i$i"

minded iti;ens# The! %ere told from the start' %ith the assistane of go$ernment

representati$es' that the! ould not beome regular emplo!ees beause there %ere no plantilla

positions for mone! sorters' %hose tas& used to be performed b! tellers# Their ontrats %ere

rene%ed se$eral times' not beause of need but merel! for humanitarian reasons# Respondent

submits that as of the present' the speial position that %as reated for the petitioners no

longer eAist)s+ in pri$ate respondent )ban&+' after the latter had deided not to rene% an!moretheir speial emplo!ment ontrats#

5t the outset' let it be &no%n that this Court appreiates the nobilit! of pri$ate

respondents effort to pro$ide emplo!ment to ph!siall! impaired indi$iduals and to ma&e

them more produti$e members of soiet!# Ho%e$er' %e annot allo% it to elude the legal

onsequenes of that effort' simpl! beause it no% deems their emplo!ment irrele$ant# The

fats' $ie%ed in light of the 1abor Code and the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons'

indubitabl! sho% that the petitioners' eAept siAteen of them' should be deemed regular

emplo!ees# 5s suh' the! ha$e aquired legal rights that this Court is dut!"bound to protet

and uphold' not as a matter of ompassion but as a onsequene of la% and (ustie#

The uniform emplo!ment ontrats of the petitioners stipulated that the! shall be trained

for a period of one month' after %hih the emplo!er shall determine %hether or not the!

should be allo%ed to finish the <"month term of the ontrat# :urthermore' the emplo!er ma!

terminate the ontrat at an! time for a (ust and reasonable ause# nless rene%ed in %riting

b! the emplo!er' the ontrat shall automatiall! eApire at the end of the term#

5ording to pri$ate respondent' the emplo!ment ontrats %ere prepared in aordane

%ith 5rtile >. of the 1abor Code' %hih pro$ides7

5RT# >.# 9mplo!ment agreement# 5n! emplo!er %ho emplo!s handiapped

%or&ers shall enter into an emplo!ment agreement %ith them' %hih agreementshall inlude7





2a3 The names and addresses of the handiapped %or&ers to be emplo!edF

2b3 The rate to be paid the handiapped %or&ers %hih shall be not less than

se$ent! fi$e 2=03 per ent of the appliable legal minimum %ageF

23 The duration of emplo!ment periodF and

2d3 The %or& to be performed b! handiapped %or&ers#

The emplo!ment agreement shall be sub(et to inspetion b! the Seretar! of1abor or his dul! authori;ed representati$es#

The stipulations in the emplo!ment ontrats indubitabl! onform %ith the aforeited

pro$ision# Sueeding e$ents and the enatment of R5 No# =-== 2the Magna Carta for

Disabled Persons3')*4+ho%e$er' (ustif! the appliation of 5rtile ->. of the 1abor Code#

Respondent ban& entered into the aforesaid ontrat %ith a total of 0< handiapped

%or&ers and rene%ed the ontrats of 4= of them# In fat' t%o of them %or&ed from */>> to

*//4# Veril!' the rene%al of the ontrats of the handiapped %or&ers and the hiring of others

lead to the onlusion that their tas&s %ere benefiial and neessar! to the ban&# More

important' these fats sho% that the! %ere qualified to perform the responsibilities of their

positions# In other %ords' their disabilit! did not render them unqualified or unfit for the tas&s

assigned to them#

In this light' the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that a qualified disabled

emplo!ee should be gi$en the same terms and onditions of emplo!ment as a qualified able"

bodied person# Setion 0 of the Magna Carta pro$ides7

Setion 0# Equal Opportunity for Employment #No disabled person shall be deniedaess to opportunities for suitable emplo!ment# 5 qualified disabled emplo!ee

shall be sub(et to the same terms and onditions of emplo!ment and the sameompensation' pri$ileges' benefits' fringe benefits' inenti$es or allo%anes as a

qualified able bodied person#

The fat that the emplo!ees %ere qualified disabled persons neessaril! remo$es the

emplo!ment ontrats from the ambit of 5rtile >.# Sine the Magna Carta aords them the

rights of qualified able"bodied persons' the! are thus o$ered b! 5rtile ->. of the 1abor

Code' %hih pro$ides7

5RT# ->.# Regular and Casual 9mplo!ment# "" The pro$isions of %rittenagreement to the ontrar! not%ithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of

the parties' an emplo!ment shall be deemed to be regular %here the emplo!ee has been engaged to perform ati$ities %hih are usuall! neessar! or desirable in the

usual business or trade of the emplo!er' eAept %here the emplo!ment has beenfiAed for a speifi pro(et or underta&ing the ompletion or termination of %hih

has been determined at the time of the engagement of the emplo!ee or %here the

%or& or ser$ies to be performed is seasonal in nature and the emplo!ment is forthe duration of the season#





5n emplo!ment shall be deemed to be asual if it is not o$ered b! the preeding paragraph7 Pro$ided' That' an! emplo!ee %ho has rendered at least one !ear of

ser$ie' %hether suh ser$ie is ontinuous or bro&en' shall be onsidered asregular emplo!ee %ith respet to the ati$it! in %hih he is emplo!ed and his

emplo!ment shall ontinue %hile suh ati$it! eAists#

The test of %hether an emplo!ee is regular %as laid do%n in De Leon v. NLRC ')*6+ in

%hih this Court held7

The primar! standard' therefore' of determining regular emplo!ment is thereasonable onnetion bet%een the partiular ati$it! performed b! the emplo!ee

in relation to the usual trade or business of the emplo!er# The test is %hether theformer is usuall! neessar! or desirable in the usual business or trade of theemplo!er# The onnetion an be determined b! onsidering the nature of the %or&

performed and its relation to the sheme of the partiular business or trade in itsentiret!# 5lso if the emplo!ee has been performing the (ob for at least one !ear'

e$en if the performane is not ontinuous and merel! intermittent' the la% deemsrepeated and ontinuing need for its performane as suffiient e$idene of the

neessit! if not indispensabilit! of that ati$it! to the business# Hene' theemplo!ment is onsidered regular' but onl! %ith respet to suh ati$it!' and %hile

suh ati$it! eAists#

8ithout a doubt' the tas& of ounting and sorting bills is neessar! and desirable to the

business of respondent ban&# 8ith the eAeption of siAteen of them' petitioners performed

these tas&s for more than siA months# Thus' the follo%ing t%ent!"se$en petitioners should bedeemed regular emplo!ees7 Marites ?ernardo' 9l$ira Eo Diamante' Rebea 9# Da$id' Da$id

P# Pasual' Raquel 9stiller' 5lbert Hallare' 9dmund M# Corte;' ,oselito O# 5gdon' Eeorge P#

1igutan ,r#' 1ilibeth J# Marmole(o' ,ose 9# Sales' Isabel Mamauag' Violeta E# Montes'

5lbino Teson' Melod! V# Eruela' ?ernadeth D# 5gero' C!nthia de Vera' 1ani R# Corte;' Ma#

Isabel ?# Conepion' Margaret Ceilia Cano;a' Thelma Sebastian' Ma# ,eanette Cer$antes'

,eannie Ramil' Ro;aida Pasual' Pin&! ?aloloa' 9li;abeth Ventura and Erae S# Pardo#

5s held b! the Court' 5rtiles ->. and ->* of the 1abor Code put an end to the

perniious pratie of ma&ing permanent asuals of our lo%l! emplo!ees b! the simple

eApedient of eAtending to them probationar! appointments' ad infinitum#)*0+ The ontrat

signed b! petitioners is a&in to a probationar! emplo!ment' during %hih the ban&

determined the emplo!ees fitness for the (ob# 8hen the ban& rene%ed the ontrat after the

lapse of the siA"month probationar! period' the emplo!ees thereb! beame regular

emplo!ees#)*<+ No emplo!er is allo%ed to determine indefinitel! the fitness of its emplo!ees#

5s regular emplo!ees' the t%ent!"se$en petitioners are entitled to seurit! of tenureF that

is' their ser$ies ma! be terminated onl! for a (ust or authori;ed ause# ?eause respondent

failed to sho% suh ause')*=+ these t%ent!"se$en petitioners are deemed illegall! dismissed

and therefore entitled to ba& %ages and reinstatement %ithout loss of seniorit! rights and

other pri$ileges#)*>+ Considering the allegation of respondent that the (ob of mone! sorting is

no longer a$ailable beause it has been assigned ba& to the tellers to %hom it originall!

belonged')*/+ petitioners are hereb! a%arded separation pa! in lieu of reinstatement# )-.+


















?eause the other siAteen %or&ed onl! for siA months' the! are not deemed regular

emplo!ees and hene not entitled to the same benefits#

Applicability of the B0*3 Ruling

Respondent ban&' iting Brent School v. Zamora)-*+ in %hih the Court upheld the $alidit!

of an emplo!ment ontrat %ith a fiAed term' argues that the parties entered into the ontrat

on equal footing#It adds that the petitioners had in fat an ad$antage' beause the! %ere

ba&ed b! then DS8D Seretar! Mita Pardo de Ta$era and Representati$e 5rturo ?or(al#

8e are not persuaded# The term limit in the ontrat %as premised on the fat that the

petitioners %ere disabled' and that the ban& had to determine their fitness for the

position# Indeed' its $alidit! is based on 5rtile >. of the 1abor Code# ?ut as noted earlier'

petitioners pro$ed themsel$es to be qualified disabled persons %ho' under the Magna Carta

for Disabled Persons' are entitled to terms and onditions of emplo!ment en(o!ed

b! qualified able"bodied indi$idualsF hene' 5rtile >. does not appl! beause petitioners

are qualified for their positions# The $alidation of the limit imposed on their ontrats'

imposed b! reason of their disabilit!' %as a glaring instane of the $er! mishief sought to be

addressed b! the ne% la%#

Moreo$er' it must be emphasi;ed that a ontrat of emplo!ment is impressed %ith publi

interest#)--+ Pro$isions of appliable statutes are deemed %ritten into the ontrat' and the

parties are not at libert! to insulate themsel$es and their relationships from the impat of

labor la%s and regulations b! simpl! ontrating %ith eah other #)-4+ Clearl!' the agreement of

the parties regarding the period of emplo!ment annot pre$ail o$er the pro$isions of the

Magna Carta for Disabled Persons' %hih mandate that petitioners must be treated as

qualified able"bodied emplo!ees#

Respondents reason for terminating the emplo!ment of petitioners is instruti$e# ?eause

the ?ang&o Sentral ng Pilipinas 2?SP3 required that ash in the ban& be turned o$er to the

?SP during business hours from >7.. a#m# to 07.. p#m#' respondent resorted to nighttime

sorting and ounting of mone!# Thus' it reasons that this tas& ould not be done b! deaf mutes

beause of their ph!sial limitations as it is $er! ris&! for them to tra$el at night# )-6+ 8e find

no basis for this argument# Tra$elling at night in$ol$es ris&s to handiapped and able"bodied

persons ali&e# This eAuse annot (ustif! the termination of their emplo!ment#

O)*0 G0ou3 C/* y R*8o3*3

Respondent argues that petitioners %ere merel! aommodated emplo!ees# This fat

does not hange the nature of their emplo!ment# 5s earlier noted' an emplo!ee is regular

beause of the nature of %or& and the length of ser$ie' not beause of the mode or e$en the

reason for hiring them#

9quall! una$ailing are pri$ate respondents arguments that it did not go out of its %a! to

reruit petitioners' and that its plantilla did not ontain their positions# In L. . Datu v. NLRC ')-0+ the Court held that the determination of %hether emplo!ment is asual or regular does not

depend on the %ill or %ord of the emplo!er' and the proedure of hiring A A A but on the

nature of the ati$ities performed b! the emplo!ee' and to some eAtent' the length of performane and its ontinued eAistene#














Pri$ate respondent argues that the petitioners %ere informed from the start that the!

ould not beome regular emplo!ees# In fat' the ban& adds' the! agreed %ith the stipulation

in the ontrat regarding this point# Still' %e are not persuaded# The %ell"settled rule is that

the harater of emplo!ment is determined not b! stipulations in the ontrat' but b! the

nature of the %or& performed#)-<+ Other%ise' no emplo!ee an beome regular b! the simple

eApedient of inorporating this ondition in the ontrat of emplo!ment#

In this light' %e iterate our ruling in Romares v. NLRC 7)-=+

5rtile ->. %as emplaed in our statute boo&s to pre$ent the irum$ention of theemplo!ees right to be seure in his tenure b! indisriminatel! and ompletel!

ruling out all %ritten and oral agreements inonsistent %ith the onept of regularemplo!ment defined therein# 8here an emplo!ee has been engaged to perform

ati$ities %hih are usuall! neessar! or desirable in the usual business of theemplo!er' suh emplo!ee is deemed a regular emplo!ee and is entitled to seurit!

of tenure not%ithstanding the ontrar! pro$isions of his ontrat of emplo!ment#

A A A A A A A A A

5t this (unture' the leading ase of Brent School! "nc. v. Zamora pro$esinstruti$e# 5s reaffirmed in subsequent ases' this Court has upheld the legalit! of

fiAed"term emplo!ment# It ruled that the deisi$e determinant in term emplo!mentshould not be the ati$ities that the emplo!ee is alled upon to perform but the da!

ertain agreed upon the parties for the ommenement and termination of theiremplo!ment relationship# ?ut this Court %ent on to sa! that %here from the

irumstanes it is apparent that the periods ha$e been imposed to preludeaquisition of tenurial seurit! b! the emplo!ee' the! should be stru& do%n or

disregarded as ontrar! to publi poli! and morals#

In rendering this Deision' the Court emphasi;es not onl! the onstitutional bias in fa$or

of the %or&ing lass' but also the onern of the State for the plight of the disabled# The noble

ob(eti$es of Magna Carta for Disabled Persons are not based merel! on harit! or

aommodation' but on (ustie and the equal treatment of qualified persons' disabled or

not# In the present ase' the handiap of petitioners 2deaf"mutes3 is not a hindrane to their

%or&# The eloquent proof of this statement is the repeated rene%al of their emplo!ment

ontrats# 8h! then should the! be dismissed' simpl! beause the! are ph!siall!

impaired The Court belie$es' that' after sho%ing their fitness for the %or& assigned to them'the! should be treated and granted the same rights li&e an! other regular emplo!ees#

In this light' %e note the Offie of the Soliitor Eenerals pra!er (oining the petitioners

ause#)->+

&!ERE%ORE' premises onsidered' the Petition is hereb! #R$NED# The ,une -.'

*//0 Deision and the 5ugust 6' *//0 Resolution of the N1RC

are RE%ERSED and SE $S"DE # Respondent :ar 9ast ?an& and Trust Compan! is

hereb! ORDERED to pa! ba& %ages and separation pa! to eah of the follo%ing t%ent!"

se$en 2-=3 petitioners' namel!' Marites ?ernardo' 9l$ira Eo Diamante' Rebea 9# Da$id'

Da$id P# Pasual' Raquel 9stiller' 5lbert Hallare' 9dmund M# Corte;' ,oselito O# 5gdon'

Eeorge P# 1igutan ,r#' 1ilibeth J# Marmole(o' ,ose 9# Sales' Isabel Mamauag' Violeta E#










Montes' 5lbino Teson' Melod! V# Eruela' ?ernadeth D# 5gero' C!nthia de Vera' 1ani R#

Corte;' Ma# Isabel ?# Conepion' Margaret Ceilia Cano;a' Thelma Sebastian' Ma# ,eanette

Cer$antes' ,eannie Ramil' Ro;aida Pasual' Pin&! ?aloloa' 9li;abeth Ventura and Erae S#

Pardo# The N1RC is hereb! direted to ompute the eAat amount due eah of said

emplo!ees' pursuant to eAisting la%s and regulations' %ithin fifteen da!s from the finalit! of

this Deision# No osts#

SO ORDERED.

Romero! &Chairman'! %itu(! )urisima! and #on*a(a+Reyes! ,,.! onur#

labor standards full text case 3

Documents