Wuerth Philippines, Inc. v. Ynson
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Wuerth Philippines, Inc. (petitioner) hired Rodante Ynson (respondent) as National Sales Manager (NSM). Respondent suffered a stroke on January 24, 2003, and was confined until February 3, 2003. He informed petitioner of his ailment and subsequent confinement. Medical certifications indicated he could return to work by June 4, 2003, with a recommendation for continued rehabilitation for another month and a half. Respondent requested administrative work in Davao City due to his ongoing therapy. Petitioner denied this request, citing no branch in Davao and no available administrative work. Petitioner sent letters directing respondent to attend investigations for alleged absences without leave and abandonment of work, later adding gross inefficiency. Respondent cited his attending physician's advice against travel and suggested the investigation be conducted in Davao. Petitioner terminated respondent's employment on August 27, 2003, for continued absences without filing a leave of absence. Procedural History: Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found respondents guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered reinstatement with backwages, medical benefits, 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The NLRC affirmed with modification, reducing damages and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) found the termination valid and observed due process, deleting backwages and damages but ordering payment of salary from February to August 2003, medical expenses, temperate damages, 13th month pay, and attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the CA's monetary awards, including salary, medical expenses, temperate damages, 13th month pay, and attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the termination of respondent's employment was valid. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding salary from February 2003 to August 29, 2003. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding medical expenses. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding temperate damages. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding 13th month pay. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding attorney's fees.
Ruling
The petition is partly granted. The Court modified the dispositions of the Court of Appeals. The award of salary from February 2003 to August 29, 2003, is deleted, but respondent is entitled to payment of salary from January 24 to June 4, 2003, chargeable against accrued sick leave benefits. The award of temperate damages is reduced from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00. The award of 13th month pay is deleted, but respondent may still be entitled to it based on company policy. The awards of medical expenses and attorney's fees are deleted. The case is remanded to the NLRC for proper computation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the termination: The Court agreed with the CA that respondent's illness could be an authorized cause for termination under Article 284 of the Labor Code. However, the employer must comply with Section 8, Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules, requiring a certification from a competent public health authority that the disease cannot be cured within six months. Petitioner failed to obtain such certification. Despite this, the Court found that respondent's prolonged absence, extending beyond the six-month period allowed for recovery, coupled with his failure to report to work or attend investigations after being cleared by his doctors, constituted gross dereliction of duties. This failure to report back to work or attend investigations, despite being permitted to do so, demonstrated indifference and disregard for his work and the employer's interests, justifying dismissal. On the award of salary from February 2003 to August 29, 2003: The Court deleted this award. It held that where an employee's inability to work is due to illness, and not abandonment or termination, each party should bear their own loss. Respondent was unable to work from January 24 to June 4, 2003, due to his stroke. Beginning June 5, 2003, he should have reported back to work but failed to do so. Therefore, he is only entitled to compensation for actual workdays, and it would be unfair to allow him to recover wages for work not performed or that he could not have performed. The Court deemed it best that the period for which he might be entitled to salary, chargeable against sick leave benefits, should be from January 24 to June 4, 2003. On the award of medical expenses: The Court deleted this award. To justify actual or compensatory damages, proof of actual loss with reasonable certainty is required, supported by competent proof like official receipts. Respondent failed to present any official receipts for medicines, medical supplies, or rehabilitation expenses, despite his claims of undergoing treatment. Therefore, the award of P94,100.00 for medical expenses was without basis. On the award of temperate damages: The Court reduced the award of temperate damages from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00. While temperate damages may be awarded when pecuniary loss cannot be proved with certainty, the Court considered that the stroke suffered by respondent was not debilitating, his health condition remained stable, and there were no recurring ailments necessitating prolonged medical attention. The CA's basis for the award was also found to be lacking in proof of actual expenses. On the award of 13th month pay: The Court clarified that the 13th Month Pay Law applies only to rank-and-file employees, not managerial employees like the respondent. However, it acknowledged that respondent might be entitled to this benefit based on company policy. The award of P175,000.00 was deleted, but the case was remanded for determination of the exact amount, full or pro-rated, in accordance with existing company policy and the number of days actually worked. On the award of attorney's fees: The Court deleted the award of attorney's fees. Attorney's fees are generally awarded when an employee is illegally dismissed in bad faith and is compelled to litigate. In this case, the Court found that respondent was validly dismissed for gross dereliction of duties and found no evidence of bad faith on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the award of attorney's fees could not be sustained.
Main Doctrine
An employer may terminate an employee suffering from a disease if the disease cannot be cured within six months, provided a certification from a competent public health authority is obtained. However, an employee's prolonged and unjustified absence from work, even if initially due to illness, after being cleared to return and after failing to attend investigations, constitutes gross dereliction of duties, justifying dismissal. The employer must still observe due process in effecting such dismissal.