Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
1bernardo vs Nlrc

1bernardo vs Nlrc

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14|Likes:
Published by Ryan Anatan

More info:

Published by: Ryan Anatan on Jul 03, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/10/2015

pdf

text

original

 
MARITES BERNARDO, et al
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,
respondentsFACTS:The 43 petitioners are deaf-mutes who were hired on various periods from 1988 to 1993 by respondentFar East Bank and Trust Co. as Money Sorters and Counters through a uniformly worded agreementcalled "Employment Contract for Handicapped Workers". The said agreement provides for the mannerof how they are hired and be rehired, the amount of their wages
(P118.00 per day 
), period of employment
(5 days a week, 8 hours a day, training for 1 month, 6 months period)
and the manner andmethods of how their works are to be done
(Sort out bills according to color; Count each denomination per hundred, either manually or with the aid of a counting machine; Wrap and label bills per hundred;Put the wrapped bills into bundles; and Submit bundled bills to the bank teller for verification.)
Many of their employments were renewed every six months. Claiming that they should be considered as regularemployees they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and recovery of various benefits.
Labor arbiter’s decision
: complaint is dismissed for lack of merit
(the terms of the contract shall be thelaw between the parties.)
. Affirmed by the NLRC
(Art. 280 is not controlling herein but Art. 80
)
(theMagna Carta for Disabled Persons was not applicable, "considering the prevailing circumstances of thecase.")
and denied motion for reconsideration.ISSUES:Whether or not petitioners were regular employees.HELD:Yes. The petition is meritorious. However, only the employees, who worked for more than six monthsand whose contracts were renewed are deemed regular. Hence, their dismissal from employment wasillegal.The stipulations in the employment contracts indubitably conform with Article 80, however, theapplication of Article 280 of the Labor Code is justified because of the advent of RA No. 7277
(theMagna Carta for Disabled Persons)
which mandates that
a qualified 
disabled employee should be giventhe same terms and conditions of employment as
a qualified 
able-bodied person
(compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe benefits, incentives or allowances)
 27 of the petitioners are considered regular employees by provision of law regardless of any agreementbetween the parties as embodied in article 280 in relation to article 281 of the Labor Code.Under article 280,
Regular and Casual Employment 
.
The provisions of written agreement to thecontrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall bedeemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usuallynecessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employmenthas been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has beendetermined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to beperformed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->