Saturday, July 12, 2008 Disease as a ground for dismissal By Dominador A. Almirante Labor Case Digest
PETITIONER, a truck/trailer driver of respondent, reported back to work after suffering from a heart attack but was told to look for another job because he was unfit to work.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), in reversing the decision of the labor arbiter, ruled that in order for the petitioner to be covered by Article 284 of the Labor Code, he must first present a certification by a competent public health authority that his disease is of such nature that it could not be cured within a period of six months even with proper medical treatment. Did the NLRC and CA err?
Ruling: Yes.
To be sure, the NLRC’s above posture is, to say the least, without basis in law and jurisprudence. And when the CA affirmed the NLRC, the appellate court—in effect—passed on the petitioner the onus of proving his entitlement to separation pay and, thereby, validated herein respondents’ act of dismissing him from employment even without proof of existence of a legal ground for dismissal.
The law is unequivocal: The employer, before it can legally dismiss its employee on the ground of disease, must adduce a certification from a competent public authority that the disease of which its employee is suffering is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six months even with proper treatment.
Here, the record does not contain the required certification. And when the respondents asked the petitioner to look for another job because he was unfit to work, such unilateral declaration, even if backed by the findings of its company doctors, did not meet the quantum requirement mandated by the law, i.e., there must be a certification by a competent public authority.
(Roque S. Duterte versus Kingswood Trading Co. Inc. et. al. G.R. No. 160325, Oct. 4, 2007).
