Disease as a ground for dismissal
In January 2010, petitioner Marina’s Creation Enterprises (Marina) hired respondent Romeo V. Ancheta as a sole attacher. In March 2011, Ancheta suffered an intra-cranial hemorrhage. On May 12, 2011, he suffered a second stroke. The physician who physically examined him stated that he would be fit to resume work after 90 days or on Aug. 12, 2011.
On Aug. 13, 2011, Ancheta reported for work. Marina, however, wanted him to submit a new medical certificate before he could resume his work. Ancheta failed to comply and was not allowed to resume his work. He filed a complaint against Marina for illegal dismissal.
Is there merit to the complaint?
Ruling: Yes.
In its petition, Marina argues that the company’s action of requiring Ancheta to undergo a medical examination and to submit a medical certificate was a valid exercise of management prerogative.
Marina’s contention is not correct. Article 279 of the Labor Code provides: “In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this title. x x x.” Since Ancheta was a regular employee of Marina, Ancheta’s employment can only be terminated by Marina based on just or authorized causes provided in the Labor Code.
In its position paper, Marina admitted that the company had refused to give Ancheta work assignments until Ancheta submitted a new medical certificate. It is Marina’s position that Ancheta’s employment would not continue if Ancheta would not submit a new medical certificate.
Marina’s action in refusing to accept Ancheta notwithstanding the medical certificate attached to Ancheta’s SSS Sickness Notification stating that Ancheta was physically fit to resume his work in Marina on Aug. 12, 2011 amounts to an illegal dismissal of Ancheta. Book VI, Rule I, Section 8 of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code provides:
Section 8. Disease as a ground for dismissal. - Where the employee suffers from a disease and his continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-employees, the employer shall not terminate his employment unless there is a certification by a competent public health authority that the disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six months even with proper medical treatment. If the disease or ailment can be cured within the period, the employer shall not terminate the employee but shall ask the employee to take a leave. The employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position immediately upon the restoration of his normal health. (Emphasis supplied)
The Implementing Rules of the Labor Code impose upon the employer the duty not to terminate an employee until there is a certification by a competent public health authority that the employee’s disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six months even with proper medical treatment.
In this case, Marina terminated Ancheta from employment without seeking a prior certification from a competent public health authority that Ancheta’s disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six months even with proper medical treatment. Hence, Ancheta was illegally dismissed by Marina. (Carpio, J., SC Second Division, Marina’s Creation Enterprises and Jerry B. Alfonso vs. Romeo V. Ancheta, G.R. No. 218333, Dec. 07, 2016).