Facts
Petitioner Omanfil International Manpower Development Corporation (Omanfil) hired Mesina for overseas work as an Expediter in Saudi Arabia. Omanfil deployed him to petitioner Mohd Al-Zoabi Technical Projects Corporation (MAZTPC; collectively petitioners) with a particular job assignment at Al Khaji Joint Operations (AKJO) in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Eventually, Mesina left for Saudi Arabia and commenced working with AKJO on May 7, 2005. After nine months of working, Mesina experienced chest pains. His severe chest pain was diagnosed as a heart disease, but he was discharged as his health was regarded as “in good condition.”
According to petitioners, Mesina opted to come home to the Philippines since he felt he could be treated better in his home country for his congenital heart ailment with his family around. They likewise claimed that they gave Mesina an entry-reentry visa so that he could return to them for work after his recovery. However, Mesina claimed that against his will, MAZTPC requested AKJO to repatriate him due to his serious medical condition immediately. Mesina reported to Omanfil and sought reimbursement for his medical expenses and for further expenses for the operation and treatment of his illness.
However, petitioners did not accede to his demands since, pursuant to the employment contract, the free medical treatment may only be availed of by Mesina during the period of his employment.
Aggrieved by what he believed to be the termination of his employment without any legal justification, Mesina proceeded to file a case for illegal dismissal, refund of hospitalization and medical expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees against petitioners.
ISSUE: Was the termination valid?
Ruling
No. The termination is not valid.
Sec 5., Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides when a warrantless arrest may be lawful, to wit:
“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.”
The Supreme Court held that for a dismissal on the ground of disease to be considered valid, two requisites must concur:
(a) the employee suffers from a disease which cannot be cured within six months and his/her continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his/her health or to the health of his/her co-employees, and
(b) a certification to that effect must be issued by a competent public health authority.
In the instant case, petitioners did not comply with the foregoing requirements to justify Mesina’s termination on the ground of a disease. The Supreme Court noted that MAZTPC repatriated Mesina to the Philippines without any showing that he had a prolonged and permanent disease.
Furthermore, Mesina’s Medical Reports established that he was first confined on February 11, 2006, due to acute retrosternal chest pain, and upon his discharge on February 14, 2006, he was “in good general condition with an advice to [undergo] a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for further evaluation and management.”
Similarly, during his second confinement on February 18, 2006, due to left-sided precordial pain on his left shoulder and forearm, his February 20, 2006 Medical Report indicated that “the patient was admitted in the hospital under observation with follow-up ECG & cardiac enzymes. ECG showed no new changes. The cardiac enzymes were within normal range. He was given a strong analgesic & the specific treatment & was discharged on 19.02.06 with advice for urgent PCI for more evaluation.”
Thus, when Mesina was repatriated on February 21, 2006, none of his medical records showed that his ailment was permanent or that he suffered from a disease which could not be cured within six months and that his continued employment was prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-employees. This is validated by the absence of the required Certification from a competent public authority certifying to such a health condition on his part.