Duterte vs. Kingswood Trading Co.

Duterte vs. Kingswood Trading Co.
,
G.R. No. 160325, October 4, 2007
Facts:
Duterte was hired as truck/trailer driver by respondent Kingswood Trading Company, Inc. (KTC)
of which co-respondent Filemon Lim is the President. When not driving, petitioner was assigned to clean
and maintain respondent KTC’s equipment and vehicles. On November 8, 1998, petitioner had his first
heart attack and was confined for two weeks at the Philippine Heart Center (PHC). 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. Respondents, however, refused to allow him.
In February 1999, petitioner suffered a second heart attack and was again confined at the PHC. Upon
release, he stayed home and spent time to recuperate. In June 1999, 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. Instead of being given separation pay,
petitioner was presented, for his signature, a document as proof of his receipt of the amount of P14,375.00
as first installment of his Social Security System (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. On November
11, 1999, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages.
While categorically declaring that petitioner’s 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 based on the respondents’ admission that petitioner could not be allowed back to work
because of the latter’s disease. On appeal, the NLRC ruled that Article 284 of the Labor Code has no
application to this case and, there being "no illegal dismissal to speak of", accordingly dismissed the
complaint. The CA upheld the NLRC Resolution.
Issue:
Whether or not Duterte was illegally terminated under Article 284.
Ruling:
Yes. The issue is on whether the dismissal of an employee on the ground of disease under Article
284 still require the employer to present a certification from a competent public health authority that the
disease is of such a nature that it could not be cured within a period of six months even with proper
medical treatment
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 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.
All told, we rule and so hold that petitioner’s dismissal did not comply with both the substantive
and procedural aspects of due process. Clearly, his dismissal is tainted with invalidity.17
Notes:
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)
In Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc. v. NLRC,11 the Court explains why the submission of the
requisite medical certificate is for the employer’s compliance, thus:
The requirement for a medical certificate under Article 284 of the Labor Code cannot be dispensed with;
otherwise, it would sanction the unilateral and arbitrary determination by the employer of the gravity or
extent of the employee’s illness and thus defeat the public policy on the protection of labor.
We do 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, petitioner being a driver, which justified respondents in refusing work to
petitioner. Petitioner could have been admitted back to work performing his other tasks, such as cleaning
and maintaining respondent company’s machine and transportation assets.
If required to be at specific places at specific times, employees, including drivers, cannot be said to be
field personnel despite the fact that they are performing work away from the principal office of the
employer. Thus, to determine whether an employee is a field employee, it is also necessary to ascertain if
actual hours of work in the field can be determined with reasonable certainty by the employer. Petitioner
was definitely a regular employee of respondent company and not its field personnel, as he was based at
the principal office of the respondent company. His actual work hours, i.e., from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
were ascertainable with reasonable certainty. He averaged 21 trips per month. And if not driving for the
company, he was paid P125.00 per day for cleaning and maintaining KTC’s equipment. Not falling under
the category of field personnel, petitioner is consequently entitled to both holiday pay and service
incentive leave pay, as mandated by Articles 94 and 95 of the Labor Code.

Duterte vs. Kingswood Trading Co.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Duterte vs. Kingswood Trading Co.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Duterte vs. Kingswood Trading Co.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Duterte vs. Kingswood Trading Co.

Article 284 of the Labor Code explicitly provides:

You might also like