Dear PAO,
My husband suffered some sort of depression and was advised to seek medical advice by the company. At the company’s expense, he was referred to several doctors to assess his mental condition. Accordingly, the psychiatric report diagnosed him to be suffering from Schizophrenia, which is incurable within a period of six months. I fear that he will be fired because of this. Can an employee be terminated due to a brain disorder, which is non-contagious?
Kirsten
Dear Kirsten,
Please be informed of the Supreme Court’s Decision in the case of Marlo A. Deoferio vs. Intel Technology Philippines, Inc. (GR 202996, June 18, 2014) where the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Arturo Brion, discussed when a disease may be considered as a valid authorized cause to dismiss an employee. According to the Supreme Court:
“The present case involves termination due to disease — an authorized cause for dismissal under Article 284 of the Labor Code. As substantive requirements, the Labor Code and its IRR require the presence of the following elements:
“(1) An employer has been found to be suffering from any disease.
“(2) His continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health, as well as to the health of his co-employees.
“(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. (Emphasis and Underscoring Ours)
From the above-quoted portion, the said elements must be met before an employee may be dismissed on the ground of disease. However, the Supreme Court also stated in the said Decision that the disease is not necessarily contagious. An employee may still be dismissed from employment if it can be shown that the disease is prejudicial to the employee’s health or that of his/her co-workers. According to the Supreme Court:
“With respect to the first and second elements, the Court 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. We 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 284 of the Labor Code, to wit:
“Art. 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 (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. [underscores, italics and emphases ours]
“Consistent with this construction, we applied this provision in resolving illegal dismissal cases due to non-contagious diseases such as stroke, heart attack, osteoarthritis, and eye cataract, among others. In Baby Bus, Inc. v. Minister of Labor, we upheld the labor arbitration finding that Jacinto Mangalino continued employment after he suffered several strokes would be prejudicial to his health. In Duterte v. Kingswood Trading Co., Inc., we recognized the applicability of Article 284 of the Labor Code to heart attacks. In that case, we held that the employer-company failure to present a certification from a public health authority rendered Roque Duterte termination due to a heart attack illegal. We also applied this provision in Sy v. Court of Appeals to determine whether Jaime Sahot was illegally dismissed due to various ailments such as presleyopia, hypertensive retinopathy, osteoarthritis, and heart enlargement, among others. In Manly Express, Inc. v. Payong, Jr., we ruled that the employer-company non-presentment of a certification from a public health authority with respect to Romualdo Payong Jr. eye cataract was fatal to its defense.”
It is clear from the above pronouncements that an employer may dismiss an employee as long as the aforesaid elements for termination due to disease are established. For this purpose, the disease need not be contagious or prejudicial to other employees before it can be upheld as an authorized cause for dismissing an employee. It is enough that the continued employment is prejudicial to the health of the concerned employee and that such disease is incurable within six months, even with medical intervention.
The ratio for the said rule is a balancing of interests. At the balance is the right of the employee to security of tenure as against the management prerogative of an employer. As a capitalist, an employer is not forced to keep an employee who may, because of his/her disease, no longer function to his/her full potential. On the other hand, an employee’s wellbeing is also protected so that he/she may focus on his/her health and quality of life.
The abovementioned standards can be applied to your husband’s situation to determine whether or not his employer may use his medical condition as a valid ground for termination. If all the substantive requirements are present, then his company may use his diagnosis with Schizophrenia as a valid cause for termination, which is allowed by the law to protect his wellbeing so that he may focus on improving his health condition.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]
