General Textile, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Rodolfo Lopez was employed by petitioner General Textiles, Inc. (Gentex) as a machine operator. He fell ill and was diagnosed with moderately advanced pulmonary tuberculosis, prompting him to go on sick leave from August 2 to September 30, 1988, receiving sickness benefits from the Social Security System. In December 1988, Lopez intended to return to work but was advised by the company physician to extend his leave. He was confined at the Quezon Institute from May 4 to July 24, 1989, a fact known to Gentex. On August 2, 1989, Gentex, through petitioner Edgar Tolentino, sent Lopez a Notice of Termination stating his employment was terminated "immediately upon receipt of this notice" on the ground of "absent without official leave" (AWOL) since September 17, 1988. Procedural History: Lopez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of monetary claims. Petitioners contended Lopez abandoned work. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal, noting Gentex knew Lopez was on sick leave, and ordered reinstatement with full back wages, subject to fitness for work. The NLRC, on appeal, agreed that there was no abandonment and the dismissal was illegal. However, it ruled against reinstatement, ordering six months' back wages and separation pay equivalent to one month's pay for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the NLRC Decision and Resolution, arguing that the NLRC erred in holding that they belatedly raised the defense of illness, that Lopez had abandoned work, and that the award of separation pay was incorrect.
Issue(s)
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) gravely abused its discretion in holding that petitioners belatedly interposed the defense of illness. Whether Rodolfo Lopez abandoned his work. Whether Gentex was penalized for dismissing Lopez upon a cause that was "false or nonexistent" as stated in the Notice of Termination, and whether this constitutes illegal dismissal. Whether the NLRC erred in awarding separation pay and limiting back wages, considering the lack of certification from a competent public health authority regarding Lopez's illness.
Ruling
The petition is granted in part. The NLRC Decision and Resolution are modified. Petitioners are ordered to reinstate private respondent subject to certification by a competent public health authority that he is fit to return to work, and to pay him full back wages. Should private respondent be certified as physically unfit to return to work and his employment terminated as a result, petitioners are ordered to pay him separation pay at the rate provided for in Article 284 of the Labor Code of the Philippines in addition to the payment of back wages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of belatedly interposing the defense of illness: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that petitioners' reliance on Lopez' disease during the proceedings did not rectify or justify the fact that the termination was based on the ground stated in the Notice of Termination, which was absence without official leave. The Notice of Termination explicitly stated "absent without official leave" as the cause, not illness. Therefore, the NLRC did not err in finding that the defense of illness was not properly raised as the primary ground for termination at the initial stages. On the issue of abandonment: The Court reiterated that the issue of whether an employee abandoned work is a factual matter. Petitioners failed to show that the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC were unsupported by substantial evidence. Consequently, these findings, which concluded that Lopez did not abandon his work, must be accorded respect and finality. The fact that Lopez was on sick leave and receiving benefits, and that Gentex was aware of his confinement, militates against any finding of abandonment. On whether Gentex should not be penalized for not utilizing illness as a cause for termination: The Court found this argument to be begging the question. Gentex was faulted for dismissing Lopez upon a cause that was "false or nonexistent" as stated in the Notice of Termination. It is this lack of a clear, valid, and legal cause that constitutes illegal dismissal, warranting reinstatement and back wages, as provided by Article 279 of the Labor Code. On the award of separation pay and limitation of back wages: The Court found that Article 284 of the Labor Code, as implemented by Section 8, Rule I, Book VI of the Rules to Implement the Labor Code, requires a certification from a competent public health authority that the disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within six months. Petitioners failed to present such a certification. Their argument that Lopez' illness was "undeniably contagious" and "cannot be cured for a period of six months" was a mere assertion and not a certification. Therefore, the NLRC could not conclude on its own that the disease was incurable and limit the back wages to six months. Lopez is entitled to full back wages from the time his compensation was withheld until actual reinstatement. If he is later certified as unfit to work, he is entitled to separation pay as provided in Article 284, in addition to back wages. The Court held that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it limited the award of back wages to six months. The NLRC based this on its own finding that the disease had "manifestly become incurable." However, without the required certification from a competent public health authority, the NLRC was not competent to make such a conclusion. Thus, Lopez is entitled to full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, computed from the time his compensation was withheld up to his actual reinstatement.
Main Doctrine
An employer cannot terminate an employee on the ground of absence without official leave if the employee is on a valid sick leave, and the termination notice explicitly stating absence without leave as the ground renders the dismissal illegal, irrespective of the employee's underlying illness. Reinstatement is mandated, subject to fitness to work, with full back wages, and separation pay if ultimately found unfit.