JMM PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT, INC. v.

CA 260 SCRA 319

August 5, 1996 (CASE DIGEST)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

POLICE POWER

JMM PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT, INC., and KARY

INTERNATIONAL INC., petitioner, v. HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, HON. MA. NIEVES CONFESSOR, then Secretary of
the Department of Labor and Employment, HON. JOSE
BRILLANTES, in his capacity as acting Secretary of
the Department of Labor and Employment and HON.
FELICISIMO JOSON, in his capacity as Administrator of
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration,
respondents.

G.R. No. 120095. August 5, 1996

KAPUNAN, J.:

FACTS:

The Federation of Entertainment Talent Managers of the Philippines (FETMOP for

brevity) filed a class suit on January 27, 1995 assailing that the Department Order
No. 3 which establishes various procedures and requirements for screening
performing artists under a new system of training, testing, certification and
deployment of the former and other related issuance, principally contending that
the said orders, 1.)violated the constitutional right to travel; 2.) abridged
existing contracts for employment; and 3.) deprived individual artists of their
licenses without due process of law. FETMOP also averred that the issuance of the
Artist Record Book (ARB) was discriminatory and illegal and in gross violation of
the constitutional right to life liberty and property. FETMOP prayed for the
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against the orders.

JMM Promotion and Management, Inc. (JMM for brevity) and Kary International, Inc.
(Kary for brevity) filed a motion for intervention in the civil case which was
granted by the trial court on February 15, 1995. However, on February 21, 1995, the
trial court issued an order denying petitioner's prayer for writ of
preliminary injunction and dismissed the compliant. An appeal was made to the trial
court regarding its decision but it was also however, dismissed. As a consequences,
ARB requirement was issed. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision
and concluded that the said issuance constituted a valid exercise of Police power.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the the said issuance is a valid exercise of Police Power.

RULING:

Yes, the ARB requirement and questioned Department Order related to its issuance
were issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to a valid exercise of Police Power
by the State. The proper regulation of a profession, calling, business or trade has
always been upheld as a legitimate subject of a valid exercise of police power by
the state particularly when their conduct afffects either the execution of a
legitimate governmental functions, the preservation of the State, the public health
and welfare and public morals. According to the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non
laedas (use your property in such a fashion so as to not disturb others) it must of
course be within the legitimate range of legislative action to define the mode and
manner in which every one may so use his own property so as not to pose injury to
himself or others.

In any case, where the liberty curtailed affects at most the right of property, the
permissible scope of regulatory measures is certainly much wider. To pretend that
licensing or accreditation requirements violates due process clause is to ignore
the settled practice, under the mantle of the police power, of regulating entry to
the practice of various trades or profession. Professional leaving for abroad are
required to pass rigid written and practical exams before they are deemed fit to
practice their trade. It is not claimed that these requirements pose an unwarranted
deprivation of a property right under the due process clause. So long as
professionals and other workers meet reasonable regulatory standards no
such deprivation exists.
G.R. No. 122917 THIRD DIVISION / PANGANIBAN, J.

July 12, 1999

MARITES BERNARDO et al. vs. NLRC Daylo, Jerome Dela Cruz Series: 7

FACTS: The 43 petitioners 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". The said agreement provides for
the manner of 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
and methods 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 regular employees they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and recovery of various
benefits. Labor arbiters decision: complaint is dismissed for lack of merit (the terms of the contract
shall be the law between the parties.). Affirmed by the NLRC (Art. 280 is not controlling herein but Art.
80) (the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons was not applicable, "considering the prevailing
circumstances of the case.") and denied motion for reconsideration.

ISSUES: Does petitioners considered as regular employees? LAW: Art.78 & 80 of the Labor Code and the
Magna Carta for Disabled Persons. RULING: Yes. The petition is meritorious. 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 stipulations in the employment
contracts indubitably conform with Article 80, however, the application of Article 280 of the Labor Code
is justified because of the advent of RA No. 7277 (the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons) which
mandates that a qualified disabled employee should be given the 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 agreement between the parties as embodied in article 280 in relation to article 281 of
the Labor Code. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business
or trade of the employer. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such
activity, and while such activity exist. Without a doubt, the task of counting and sorting bills is
necessary and desirable to the business of respondent bank. When the bank renewed the contract after
the lapse of the six-month probationary period, the employees thereby became regular employees. No
employer is allowed to determine indefinitely the fitness of its employees. Those who have worked for
only 6 months and employments were not renewed are not considered regular employees.

OPINION: The Court correctly finds that 27 of the handicapped workers are regular employees. The test
is whether the activity is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.
The employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such activity, and while such activity
exist. Without a doubt, the task of counting and sorting bills is necessary and desirable to the business
of respondent bank. As regular employees, the twenty-seven petitioners are entitled to security of
tenure; that is, their services may be terminated only for a just or authorized cause.