Dear Atty. Kathy,
We have an employee, X, who has been suffering from a mental health condition. Our company doctor certified that X’s condition is not curable within six months, even with medical treatment, and that X’s continued employment would be prejudicial to X’s mental health. Does our company have grounds to terminate X’s employment due to disease, even if his mental health condition is not a contagious disease?
Zoe
***
Dear Zoe,
For termination of employment due to disease, the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules, require the following elements: (1) An employee has been found to be suffering from any disease; (2) The employee’s continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his/her health, as well as to the health of his/her co-employees; and (3) A competent public health authority certifies 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.
With regard to the first and second elements, the Supreme Court has liberally construed the phrase “prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees” to mean “prejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-employees.”
Further, the Court did not limit the scope of this phrase to contagious diseases for the reason that this phrase is preceded by the phrase “any disease” under Article 299 [284] of the Labor Code, to wit: “Art. 299 [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 month salary or to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six months being considered as one (1) whole year.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Consistent with this construction, the Court has applied this provision in resolving illegal dismissal cases due to non-contagious diseases such as stroke, heart attack, osteoarthritis, and eye cataract, among others.
As to the third element, the required certification shall be from a competent public health authority, which refers to a government doctor whose medical specialization pertains to the disease being suffered by the employee. The company doctor or specialist is not the competent public health authority referred to in the law, and the medical certification they will issue is not an acceptable certificate for purposes of terminating an employment based on Article 299 [284].
Thus, for the company to have valid ground to dismiss X due to disease, there should be a medical certificate from a competent public health authority to substantiate that X has indeed been suffering from a disease that is prejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-employees, and that cannot be cured within a period of six months even with proper medical treatment. Without the medical certificate, there can be no authorized cause for the employee’s dismissal. The absence of this element will render the dismissal void and illegal.
(Marlo A. Deoferio versus Intel Technology Philippines Inc. and/or Mike Wentling, G.R. No. 202996, 18 June 2014; Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. versus NLRC, et al., G.R. Nos. 141-702-03, 2 August 2001; Cebu Royal Plant [San Miguel Corporation] versus Hon. Deputy Minister of Labor, G.R. no. 58639, 12 August 1987.)
Atty. Kathy Larios