CASE DIGEST: Bernardo v. National Labor Relations Commission

 

MARITES BERNARDO et al V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 122917                |              July 12, 1999

 

TOPIC: Disabled workers

FACTS:

Complainants are deaf-mutes who were hired by Far East Bank and Trust Co. as Money Sorters and Counters through a uniformly worded agreement called “Employment Contract for Handicapped Workers.” Their employments were renewed every 6 months.

Disclaiming that complainants were regular employees, Far East Bank and Trust Company maintained that complainants who are a special class of workers were hired temporarily under a special employment arrangement which was a result of overture made by some civic and political personalities to the respondent Bank.

The LA and NLRC ruled against herein petitioners. Respondent Commission ratiocinated that Art. 280 is not controlling in this case. As complainants were hired as an accommodation to the recommendation of civic oriented personalities whose employment were covered by Employment Contracts with special provisions on duration of contract as specified under Art. 80, the terms of the contract shall be the law between the parties.

The NLRC also declared that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons was not applicable, “considering the prevailing circumstances/milieu of the cases.”

ISSUE:

Is the provision of the RA 7277 on proscription against discrimination against disabled persons applicable in this case

RULING:

The renewal of the contracts of the handicapped workers and the hiring of others leads to the conclusion that their tasks were beneficial and necessary to the bank. More important, these facts show that they were qualified to perform the responsibilities of their positions. In other words, their disability did not render them unqualified or unfit for the tasks assigned to them.

In this light, 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.

The fact that the employees were qualified disabled persons necessarily removes the employment contracts from the ambit of Article 80. Since the Magna Carta accords them the rights of qualified able-bodied persons, they are thus covered by Article 280 of the Labor Code.

The noble objectives of Magna Carta for Disabled Persons are not based merely on charity or accommodation, but on justice and the equal treatment of qualified persons, disabled or not. In the present case, the handicap of petitioners (deaf-mutes) is not a hindrance to their work. The eloquent proof of this statement is the repeated renewal of their employment contracts. The Court believes, that, after showing their fitness for the work assigned to them, they should be treated and granted the same rights like any other regular employees