Case Digest:

BERNARDO vs NLRC

GR 122917 July 12, 1999

Facts: Petitioners numbering 43 are deaf-mutes who were hired on various periods from 1988 to 1993 by
respondent Far East Bank as Money Sorters and Counters through a uniformly worded agreement called
“Employment Contract for Handicapped Workers.” Every 6 months these said workers renew their
employment contracts. The complainants assert that they were regular employees and that they were
dismissed illegally.

Petitioners maintain that because their tasks were necessary and desirable to the business of respondent
bank they should be considered regular employees. They also allege their contracts served merely to
preclude the application of Article 280 and to prevent them from becoming real employees.

Respondent submits that the petitioners were hired only as “special workers” and that they should not
be considered as part of the regular complement of the bank. Rather they were “special workers” as per
Article 80 of the Labor Code.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are regular employees

Held: YES. The fact that after the expiry of their 6-month contract, respondent bank renewed their
contracts shows that these workers were qualified to perform their duties and responsibilities.

Also, according to the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, it is mandated that a disabled person once
qualified shall be given the same terms and conditions of employment as a qualified able-bodied person.

Since the Magna Carta accords them the rights of qualified able-bodied persons means they are covered
by Article 280 of the Labor Code:

“ART 280. Regular and Casual Employment. The provision 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 …”

The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer. The
connection can be determined by considering the nature and the work performed and its relation to the
theme of the particular business as a whole. Also if the employee has been doing the job for at least one
year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent. Hence, the employment is
considered regular, but only with respect to such activity, and while such activity exists.

Respondent entered into the aforesaid contract with 56 handicapped workers and a renewal of contract
was done with 37 of them. Meaning, the mere act of renewal of contracts and hiring of others lead to the
conclusion that those said tasks were beneficial to the bank. Also that they were deemed qualified to do
the responsibilities of said position. Conclusion, the worker’s disability did not hinder their duties to
render them unqualified for their tasks
TANADA vs ANGARA

GR No 118295 May 2, 1997

Facts: This case is a petitioned by Senator Wigberto Tanada et al, to nullify the Philippine ratification of
the World Trade Organization Agreement. They believe that this will be unfavorable to the potential
growth of our national economy and against the “Filipino First” policy. The WTO opens access to foreign
markets, especially its major trading partners, particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus,
provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and
more investment in the country. These factors are benefits predicted and reflected in the agreement as
viewed by the signatories, a free market advocated by WTO.

Petitioners contend that it is in conflict with the provisions of our constitution, since said agreements is
an assault on the sovereign powers of the Philippines on the grounds that it meant Congress is unable to
pass legislation that would be good for national interest and general welfare if such legislation would not
conform with the WTO.

Issue: Whether or not the provisions of the Agreement establishing WTO and Associated Legal
Instruments cited by the petitioners directly contravene or undermine the letter of Section 19 Article II of
the 1987 Constitution

Held: NO. The courts held that while the constitution shows personal bias in favor of our own goods,
services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the
rest of the world on the basis of equality and reciprocity and limits Filipino protection only against foreign
competition and trade practices that are unfair. In other words, it did not pursue a nature of isolation. It
will not shut out foreign investments, goods and services in the development of our economy. The
constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods; neither does it prohibit them. It
only frowns on foreign competition that is deemed unfair. Basically, the main principle underlying the
WTO Agreement recognizes the need of developing countries like the Philippines to share in the growth
in international trade equal with the needs of their economic development.
ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE COCONUT DESICCATORS vs PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY

GR No 110526 February 10, 1998

Facts: The Philippine Coconut Authority was created by PD No 232 as an independent public corporation
to promote the rapid development and growth of the coconut and other palm oil industry. This is to
ensure that coconut farmers become direct participants in such development and growth through a
regulatory scheme made by law.

PCA issued Board Resolution No 018-39 which no longer require those wishing to engage in coconut
processing to apply for licenses as a condition for engaging in such business. Reason being is to promote
free exercise unrestricted by protective regulations. Unfortunately, this caused instead cut-throat
competition among operators specifically in congested areas, smuggling and the decline of coconut based
commodities. The Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators then filed a petition for mandamus to
oblige PCA to revoke said Board Resolution.

Issue: Whether or not the petition should be granted

Held: YES. Petition is granted and above mentioned Board Resolution No 018-39 is declared Null and Void.
Having been excess of the power of the PCA to adopt or issue. The constitution, even back then during its
1935 form, have denied laissez-faire as an economic principle. Although the present Constitution, the
1987 document protects free enterprise as a policy, it still nonetheless reserves the government the
power to intervene whenever needed to promote general welfare. As such, free enterprise does not go
with the removal of protective regulations for the general public’s benefit.

Under Article II 3(a) of the Revised Coconut Code, PCA’s role is to formulate and adopt a general program
of development for the coconut and other palm oil industry in all its aspects. By limiting the purpose of
registration to merely “monitoring volumes of production and administration of quality standards” of
coconut processing plants, the PCA in effect relinquishes its role and leaves it almost completely to market
forces on how the coconut industry might develop.