Del Monte Philippines v. Velasco
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Lolita M. Velasco (respondent) was employed by Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (petitioner) starting October 21, 1976, and was regularized on May 1, 1977, as a Field Laborer. She received written warnings for absences on June 16, 1987, and May 4, 1991. Her vacation leave entitlements were forfeited due to absences without permission in 1990-1991 and 1991-1992. On September 17, 1994, she received a notice of hearing for alleged violations of the Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) rule, specifically for absences on August 15-18, 29-31, and September 1-10, 1994. Respondent failed to appear at the scheduled hearings on September 23 and 30, 1994, and October 5, 1994. On January 10, 1995, petitioner terminated respondent's services effective January 16, 1995, due to excessive absences without permission. Procedural History: Respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal, asserting her absences were due to being pregnant and suffering from a urinary tract infection. She claimed to have informed her supervisor and obtained medical advice for rest. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding respondent an incorrigible absentee who failed to justify her absences or appear at hearings. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with full backwages, holding that respondent's pregnancy justified her absences and that petitioner violated Article 137(2) of the Labor Code. The NLRC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's decision, agreeing that justified absences due to pregnancy could not be a ground for dismissal and that petitioner violated Article 137(2). The CA also denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45, seeking to reverse the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in considering the absences justified solely on account of pregnancy, in not considering the totality of infractions as gross and habitual neglect, and in holding that the dismissal violated Article 137(2) of the Labor Code. Petitioner also questioned the award of full backwages.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent's excessive absences without official leave (AWOL) were justified by her pregnancy and related illnesses. Whether the respondent's dismissal, considering her alleged history of absenteeism and the circumstances of her latest absences, constituted gross and habitual neglect of duties. Whether the respondent's dismissal violated Article 137(2) of the Labor Code, which prohibits discharging a woman on account of her pregnancy. Whether the award of full backwages was proper despite the petitioner's alleged good faith.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision dated July 23, 2001, and the Resolution dated May 7, 2002, of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the justification of absences due to pregnancy: The Court held that the absences incurred by the respondent were justified due to her pregnancy and related illnesses, specifically a urinary tract infection. Unlike conditions like chronic asthmatic bronchitis, pregnancy is a continuing condition with various symptoms and related illnesses that can reasonably explain intermittent absences. The Court found it unreasonable to strictly isolate the condition to the exact dates in medical certificates, especially when the company doctor advised "rest-in-quarters" due to a pregnancy-related sickness. The Court took judicial notice that expectant mothers in the first trimester often suffer from morning sickness, frequent urination, vomiting, and fatigue, which are consistent with the respondent's reported conditions. The petitioner's argument that the respondent failed to provide proof for all absences was unpersuasive, as the NLRC and CA found substantial evidence of her pregnancy and related ailments. The petitioner's own officer admitted receiving hospital records indicating "rest-in-quarters" advice, which should have served as a reference for earlier absences. On gross and habitual neglect of duties: The Court found the petitioner's contention of gross and habitual neglect unpersuasive because the respondent's latest string of absences was justifiable due to her pregnancy and related illnesses. While absenteeism is a ground for dismissal, the prohibition under Article 137(2) of the Labor Code against dismissing a woman due to pregnancy overrides this ground when the absences are directly caused by such condition. Since the absences in 1994 were subsequently explained and justified by her pregnancy, the petitioner could not legally consider these, along with prior infractions, as constituting gross and habitual neglect. The company rules allowing subsequent justification of absences were also considered. On the violation of Article 137(2) of the Labor Code: The Court affirmed the CA's conclusion that the respondent's dismissal was on account of her pregnancy, which is a prohibited act under Article 137(2) of the Labor Code. This article explicitly prohibits employers from discharging a woman employee due to her pregnancy. The Court found that the petitioner's insistence on terminating the respondent despite the pregnancy-related justification for her absences demonstrated that the dismissal was directly linked to her condition. The fact that the respondent was pregnant and suffering from related ailments was admitted by the petitioner, and the company doctor's advice for rest further supported the justification for her absences. On the award of full backwages: The Court found no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the CA and NLRC, which included the award of full backwages. Since the dismissal was declared illegal, the consequence under Article 279 of the Labor Code is reinstatement with full backwages from the date of termination to actual reinstatement. The petitioner's claim of good faith was not a sufficient basis to overturn this award, especially given the finding that the dismissal was a prohibited act under the Labor Code.
Main Doctrine
An employee's absences due to pregnancy-related illnesses are considered justified, and dismissal on such grounds constitutes illegal dismissal and a violation of Article 137(2) of the Labor Code, especially when company rules allow for subsequent justification of absences.