MARITES BERNARDO v.

NLRC
G.R. No. 122917 July 12, 1999

Facts:

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". They alleged that they were illegally dismissed by respondent.

Disclaiming that complainants were regular employees, respondent Far East Bank and
Trust Company maintained that complainants who are a special class of workers — the hearing
impaired employees 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 complainants were hired due to "pakiusap"; that the idea of hiring handicapped workers
was acceptable to them only on a special arrangement basis; that it adopted the special
program to help tide over a group of workers such as deaf-mutes like the complainants who
could do manual work for the respondent Bank; that the task of counting and sorting of bills
which was being performed by tellers could be assigned to deaf-mutes; that from the beginning
there have been no separate items in the respondent Bank plantilla for sorters or counters;

The Labor Arbiter and NLRC dismissed the complaint of petitioners hence this Petition
for Certiorari.

Issue: WON the petitioners should be considered as regular employees?

Ruling: YES, they must be considered as regular employees. However, 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 Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that a qualified disabled employee
should be given the same terms and conditions of employment as a qualified able-bodied
person. Section 5 of the Magna Carta states that, “No disabled person shall be denied access to
opportunities for suitable employment. A qualified disabled employee shall be subject to the
same terms and conditions of employment and the same compensation, privileges, benefits,
fringe benefits, incentives or allowances as a qualified able bodied person.”

The fact that the employees were qualified disabled persons necessarily removes the
employment contracts from the ambit of Article 80 of the Labor Code. Since the Magna Carta
accords them the rights of qualified able-bodied persons, they are thus covered by Article 280 of
the Labor Code which states that, “The provisions of written agreement to the contrary
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be
deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of
which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work
or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the
season. An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding
paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered as regular employee with
respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such
activity exists.”

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 following twenty-seven petitioners should be deemed
regular employees.
 EFREN P. PAGUIO v. NLRC
G.R. No. 122917 July 12, 1999

Facts:

On 22 June 1992, respondent Metromedia Times Corporation entered, for the fifth time,
into an agreement with petitioner Efren P. Paguio, appointing the latter to be an account
executive of the firm. Again, petitioner was to solicit advertisements for "The Manila Times," a
newspaper of general circulation, published by respondent company.

On 15 August 1992, barely two months after the renewal of his contract, petitioner
received the following a notice from respondent company informing him of his termination
effective Sept. 30, 1992.

Apart from vague allegations of misconduct on which he was not given the opportunity to
defend himself, i.e., pirating clients from his co-executives and failing to produce results, no
definite cause for petitioner's termination was given. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a case before the
labor arbiter, asking that his dismissal be declared unlawful and that his reinstatement, with
entitlement to backwages without loss of seniority rights, be ordered.

In their defense, respondent Metromedia Times Corporation asserted that it did not enter
into any agreement with petitioner outside of the contract of services under Articles 1642 and
1644 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Furthermore, they asserted their right to terminate the
contract with petitioner.

The Labor Arbiter declared Paguio’s dismissal as illegal. On appeal, NLRC reversed the
ruling of the labor arbiter and declared the contractual relationship between the parties as being
for a fixed-term employment. The NLRC declared a fixed-term employment to be lawful as long
as "it was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or
improper pressure being brought to bear upon the worker and absent any other circumstances
vitiating his consent." Petitioner appealed the ruling of the NLRC before the Court of Appeals
which upheld in toto the findings of the commission. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Issue:

1. WON petitioner is a regular employee

2. WON petitioner has been justly dismissed from service

Ruling:

1. Yes, petitioner Paguio is a regular employee.

A "regular employment," whether it is one or not, is aptly gauged from the concurrence,
or the non-concurrence, of the following factors - a) the manner of selection and
engagement of the putative employee, b) the mode of payment of wages, c) the presence or
absence of the power of dismissal; and d) the presence or absence of the power to control
the conduct of the putative employee or the power to control the employee with respect to
the means or methods by which his work is to be accomplished. The "control test" assumes
primacy in the overall consideration. Under this test, an employment relation obtains where
work is performed or services are rendered under the control and supervision of the party
contracting for the service, not only as to the result of the work but also as to the manner
and details of the performance desired.

An indicum of regular employment, rightly taken into account by the labor arbiter, was
the reservation by respondent Metromedia Times Corporation not only of the right to control
the results to be achieved but likewise the manner and the means used in reaching that
end.10 Metromedia Times Corporation exercised such control by requiring petitioner, among
other things, to submit a daily sales activity report and also a monthly sales report as well.
Various solicitation letters would indeed show that Robina Gokongwei, company president,
 Alda Iglesia, the advertising manager, and Frederick Go, the advertising director, directed
and monitored the sales activities of petitioner.

Under Art. 280 of the Labor Code, a regular employee is one who is engaged to perform
activities which are necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer
as against those which are undertaken for a specific project or are seasonal. That petitioner
performed activities which were necessary and desirable to the business of the employer,
and that the same went on for more than a year, could hardly be denied. Petitioner was an
account executive in soliciting advertisements, clearly necessary and desirable, for the
survival and continued operation of the business of respondent corporation.

2. NO, petitioner Paguio was not justly dismissed from service.

A lawful dismissal must meet both substantive and procedural requirements; in fine, the
dismissal must be for a just or authorized cause and must comply with the rudimentary due
process of notice and hearing. It is not shown that respondent company has fully bothered itself
with either of these requirements in terminating the services of petitioner. The notice of
termination recites no valid or just cause for the dismissal of petitioner nor does it appear that he
has been given an opportunity to be heard in his defense.
 PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., v. HON. FRANKLIN
M. DRILON
G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988

Facts:

The petitioner, Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI), a firm engaged
principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas placement,
challenges the Constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, of the
Department of Labor and Employment, in the character of "GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE
TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO DOMESTIC AND
HOUSEHOLD WORKERS," in this petition for certiorari and prohibition. Specifically, the
measure is assailed for "discrimination against males or females;" that it "does not apply to all
Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar skills;" and that it is
violative of the right to travel. It is held likewise to be an invalid exercise of the lawmaking
power, police power being legislative, and not executive, in character.

In its supplement to the petition, PASEI invokes Section 3, of Article XIII, of the
Constitution, providing for worker participation "in policy and decision-making processes
affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law." Department Order No. 1, it is
contended, was passed in the absence of prior consultations. It is claimed, finally, to be in
violation of the Charter's non-impairment clause, in addition to the "great and irreparable injury"
that PASEI members face should the Order be further enforced.

Issue:

WON the petition of the Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. is valid

Ruling:
No, the petition of PASEI is invalid.

The petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason why the contested measure should be
nullified. There is no question that Department Order No. 1 applies only to "female contract
workers," but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination between the sexes. It is well-
settled that "equality before the law" under the Constitution does not import a perfect Identity of
rights among all men and women. It admits of classifications, provided that (1) such
classifications rest on substantial distinctions; (2) they are germane to the purposes of the law;
(3) they are not confined to existing conditions; and (4) they apply equally to all members of the
same class.

The Court is satisfied that the classification made, the preference for female workers,
rests on substantial distinctions. As a matter of judicial notice, the Court is well aware of the
unhappy plight that has befallen our female labor force abroad, especially domestic servants,
amid exploitative working conditions marked by, in not a few cases, physical and personal
abuse. The sordid tales of maltreatment suffered by migrant Filipina workers, even rape and
various forms of torture, confirmed by testimonies of returning workers, are compelling motives
for urgent Government action.

There is likewise no doubt that such a classification is germane to the purpose behind
the measure. Unquestionably, it is the avowed objective of Department Order No. 1 to "enhance
the protection for Filipino female overseas workers" this Court has no quarrel that in the midst of
the terrible mistreatment Filipina workers have suffered abroad, a ban on deployment will be for
their own good and welfare.

The Order does not narrowly apply to existing conditions. Rather, it is intended to apply
indefinitely so long as those conditions exist. This is clear from the Order itself ("Pending review
of the administrative and legal measures, in the Philippines and in the host countries . . ."),
meaning to say that should the authorities arrive at a means impressed with a greater degree of
permanency, the ban shall be lifted.

The Court finds, finally, the impugned guidelines to be applicable to all female domestic
overseas workers. That it does not apply to "all Filipina workers" is not an argument for
unconstitutionality. Had the ban been given universal applicability, then it would have been
unreasonable and arbitrary. For obvious reasons, not all of them are similarly circumstanced.
What the Constitution prohibits is the singling out of a select person or group of persons within
an existing class, to the prejudice of such a person or group or resulting in an unfair advantage
to another person or group of persons.

The consequence the deployment ban has on the right to travel does not impair the
right. The right to travel is subject, among other things, to the requirements of "public safety,"
"as may be provided by law." Department Order No. 1 is a valid implementation of the Labor
Code, in particular, its basic policy to "afford protection to labor," pursuant to the respondent
Department of Labor's rule-making authority vested in it by the Labor Code.
 JUSTA G. GUIDO v. RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
G.R. No. L-2089 October 31, 1949

Facts: