ROQUE DUTERTE v. KINGSWOOD TRADING CO, INC.
,
G. R. NO. 160325 OCTOBER 4, 2007
PONENTE: GARCIA, J.,
FACTS:
Petitioner was hired as truck/trailer driver by respondent Kingswood (KTC) .Petitioner
was on the 6:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. shift. He averaged 21 trips per month, getting P700 per trip. When
not driving, petitioner was assigned to clean and maintain respondent KTCs equipment and
vehicles for which he was paid P125 per day.
Petitioner suffered a heart attack and was confined for two weeks at the Philippine Heart
Center (PHC) as confirmed by respondent KTC which admitted that petitioner was declared on
sick leave. A month later, petitioner returned to work armed with a medical certificate signed by
his attending physician at the PHC, attesting to petitioner’s fitness to work. However, said
certificate was not honored by the respondents who refused to allow petitioner to work.
He suffered a second heart attack and was again confined at the PHC. Petitioner
attempted to report back to work but was told to look for another job because he was unfit.
Respondents refused to declare petitioner fit to work unless physically examined by the company
physician.
Respondent’s promise to pay petitioner his separation pay turned out to be an empty
one. Instead, petitioner was asked to sign a document as proof of his receipt of the amount
of P14,375.00 as first installment of his SSS benefits. Having received no such amount, petitioner
refused to affix his signature thereon and instead requested for the necessary documents from
respondents to enable him to claim his SSS benefits, but the latter did not heed his request
Petitioner filed against his employer a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages. LA
found for the petitioner. However, while categorically declaring that petitioners dismissal was
illegal, the labor arbiter, instead of applying Article 279 of the Labor Code on illegal dismissals,
applied Article 284 on Disease as ground for termination on the rationale that since the
respondents admitted that petitioner could not be allowed back to work because of the latter’s
disease, the case fell within the ambit of Article 284. On respondents appeal, the NLRC set aside
the LA decision, ruling that Article 284 of the Labor Code has no application to this case, there
being no illegal dismissal to speak of. CA affirmed.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE DISMISSAL IS VALID.
RULING:
NO. Article 284 of the Labor Code explicitly provides:
Art. 284. DISEASE AS GROUND FOR TERMINATION. -- An employer
may terminate the services of an employee who has been found to be suffering
from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is
prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees: Provided,
That he is paid separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to
one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a
fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.
Corollarily, in order to validly terminate employment on the basis of disease, Book VI,
Rule I, Section 8 of the Omnibus Implementing Rules of the Labor Code requires:
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 (6) 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 such employee to his former position immediately upon
the restoration of his normal health. (Book VI, Rule 1, Sec. 8 of the Implementing
Rules)
The Supreme Court ruled that 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.
In the instant case, 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 up 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.
The court is not unmindful of the connection between the nature of petitioner’s disease
and his job as a truck/trailer driver. It is also fully aware that petitioner’s job places at stake the
safety of the public. However, the Supreme Court does not agree with the NLRC that petitioner
was validly dismissed because his continued employment was prohibited by the basic legal
mandate that reasonable diligence must be exercised to prevent prejudice to the public, which
justified respondents in refusing work to petitioner. Petitioner could have been admitted back to
work performing other tasks, such as cleaning and maintaining respondent company’s machine
and transportation assets.
