MARITES BERNARDO, ET AL. VS NLRC AND FAR EAST BANK.

FACTS: Far East Bank (Respondent) entered into employment contracts with deaf-mutes, who were
hired as money sorters under uniform “Employment Contracts for Handicapped Workers.” Every 6
months, these workers renewed their employment contracts. The complainants here complain that they
were regular employees and that they have been illegally dismissed.

Respondent argued that complainants were not regular employees, but a special class of workers who
were hired because of political and civic accommodation. And that the Bank’s corporate philosophy does
not allow the hiring and regularizing handicapped workers unless it was on a special arrangement basis.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent bank workers. NLRC affirmed.

Issue: are petitioners’ regular employee?

Pet. Contention: Petitioners maintain that they should be considered regular employees, because their
task as money sorters and counters was necessary and desirable to the business of respondent bank.
They further allege that their contracts served merely to preclude the application of Article 280 and to bar
them from becoming regular employees.

Respondents contention: petitioners were hired only as "special workers and should not in any way be
considered as part of the regular complement of the Bank." 12 Rather, they were "special" workers under
Article 80 of the Labor Code. Private respondent contends that it never solicited the services of
petitioners, whose employment was merely an "accommodation" in response to the requests of
government officials and civic-minded citizens. They were told from the start, "with the assistance of
government representatives," that they could not become regular employees because there were no
plantilla positions for "money sorters," whose task used to be performed by tellers. Their contracts were
renewed several times, not because of need "but merely for humanitarian reasons." Respondent
submits that "as of the present, the "special position" that was created for the petitioners no longer
exist[s] in private respondent [bank], after the latter had decided not to renew anymore their special
employment contracts."

Ruling: YES, petitioners are regular employees. The fact that after the expiry of their 6 month contract,
respondent bank renewed their contracts shows that these workers were qualified to perform the
responsibilities of their positions.

The Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that a qualified disabled employee should be given
the same terms of employment as a qualified able-bodied person. This being so, petitioners are thus
covered by Art. 286 of the Labor Code which defines regular employment to be that the employee has
been engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer. The task of counting and sorting bills is necessary to the business of respondent
bank. Except for sixteen of them, the petitioners performed these tasks for more than six
months. Therefore, the 27 petitioners should be deemed regular employees entitled to security of
tenure. Their services may only be terminated for a just and authorized cause. Because respondents
failed to show such cause, these 27 petitioners are deemed illegally dismissed and hence entitled to
backwages and separation pay.