Title
Marina's Creation Enterprises vs. Ancheta
Case
G.R. No. 218333
Decision Date
Dec 7, 2016
Employee recovered from stroke, certified fit to work, but employer refused reinstatement without new medical clearance, leading to illegal dismissal ruling.
illegal dismissal
stroke
court ruling
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 218333)

Factual Background

In January 2010, Marina hired Ancheta as a sole attacher. In March 2011, Ancheta suffered an intra-cranial hemorrhage (stroke) and was placed under home care. On 12 May 2011, he suffered a second stroke and was confined at St. Victoria Hospital in Marikina City for four days. After the confinement, on 26 May 2011, Ancheta filed a Sickness Notification with the Social Security System (SSS) and received sickness benefits amounting to P8,100. The physician who physically examined him stated that he would be fit to resume work after ninety (90) days, or on 12 August 2011. On 13 August 2011, Ancheta reported for work. Marina, however, required him to submit a new medical certificate before he could resume his duties. Ancheta did not submit the requested certificate, and as a consequence he was not allowed to return to work in Marina.

Complaint Before the Labor Arbiter

On 8 November 2011, Ancheta filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter against Marina and Jerry B. Alfonso for illegal dismissal and non-payment of separation pay. In his position paper, Ancheta alleged that after his recovery he reported for work but was told by Marina to wait for the company’s call. When he returned, Marina allegedly instructed him to take more rest and purportedly hired two new workers as his replacement. He also alleged that he was not served with a notice for termination and a subsequent notice for hearing as mandated by the Labor Code.

Marina, in its position paper, maintained that Ancheta was employed on a piece rate basis and was not terminated; instead, it asserted that it refused to provide him job assignments because of his failure to submit a medical clearance showing he was fit to resume work. Marina characterized its insistence on the medical certificate as a precautionary measure, justified by Ancheta’s pre-existing medical condition and the company’s concern to avoid incidents.

Labor Arbiter’s Ruling

In a decision dated 25 July 2012, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. It held that Ancheta failed to convincingly prove that he was illegally dismissed. The Labor Arbiter found no positive or overt act by Marina that would support the claim of illegal dismissal. It thus ruled in Marina’s favor and dismissed the complaint.

NLRC’s Ruling

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in a decision dated 14 January 2013 and denied reconsideration on 28 February 2013. The NLRC ruled that Ancheta failed to establish the fact of his dismissal. It emphasized that, as a general rule, the employee must first establish the fact of dismissal before the burden shifts to the employer to prove legal dismissal. It further held that Marina’s requirement of a medical certificate before allowing Ancheta to return was reasonable, and it concluded that Marina could not be faulted for refusing job assignments in the absence of a new medical certificate, because both parties had an interest that Ancheta be medically capable of enduring the rigors of work.

Court of Appeals’ Reversal

The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC in a decision dated 2 June 2014. It ruled that Ancheta was illegally dismissed. The CA reasoned that the fact of dismissal was established by Marina’s own admission that it refused to give job assignments due to Ancheta’s failure to submit a medical certificate. The CA also held that the absence of a medical certificate did not justify Marina’s refusal to furnish work assignments.

The CA considered the physician’s certification attached to Ancheta’s SSS Sickness Notification as proof that he was fit to resume work on 12 August 2011. It further relied on the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, holding that it was Marina, not Ancheta, that bore the burden of proving that the disease could not be cured within a period of at least six months in order to justify dismissal. Finally, because it found illegal dismissal, the CA awarded backwages and separation pay, and remanded the case for computation.

On 4 March 2015, the CA denied Marina’s motion for reconsideration, prompting Marina’s petition to the Supreme Court.

Issue Presented

The sole issue was whether Ancheta was illegally dismissed by Marina.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling and Reasoning

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA.

The Court first addressed Ancheta’s employment status under Article 280 of the Labor Code. It explained that regular employees include: employees engaged in activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s usual business or trade, and employees who have rendered at least one year of service with respect to the activity for which they are employed. Citing De Leon v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court reiterated that the test for regular status is whether the work performed is usually necessary or desirable in the business, assessed by the nature of the work and its relation to the business scheme. The Court also observed that if the employee has performed the job for at least one year, the law deems the repeated and continuing need as sufficient evidence of necessity if not indispensability.

Applying these principles, the Court held that Ancheta was a regular employee of Marina. His work as a sole attacher was usually necessary or desirable in Marina’s business of making shoes and bags. Moreover, he had worked as a sole attacher from January 2010 until March 2011 when he first suffered his stroke, which established regular employment status by the one-year benchmark.

On Marina’s argument that requiring a medical examination and a new certificate was a valid management prerogative, the Court held the contention to be incorrect. Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, an employer cannot terminate a regular employee except for just cause or when authorized by law. Since Ancheta was a regular employee, the Court ruled that Marina could only refuse employment or terminate on just or authorized causes under the Labor Code.

The Court noted that Marina admitted refusing to provide job assignments until Ancheta submitted a new medical certificate. The Court treated Marina’s refusal to accept him for work despite the medical certification attached to the SSS notification as amounting to illegal dismissal.

Disease as a Ground for Dismissal: Compliance with the Implementing Rules

The Court then focused on Book VI, Rule I, Section 8 of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code, which governs disease as a ground for dismissal. The rule provides that where an employee suffers from a disease and continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to health, the employer shall not terminate employment unless there is certification by 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 even with proper medical treatment. If the disease can be cured within six months, the employer is not allowed to terminate; it must instead ask the employee to take a leave and reinstate him immediately upon restoration of normal health.

The Court held that these implementing rules impose a duty on the employer not to terminate (or in effect refuse continued employment as a dismissal) without first obtaining the required certification. In this case, Marina did not seek prior certification from a competent public health authority. Thus, Marina could not lawfully deny continued employment on the basis of an unfulfilled requirement for a new certificate. On that reasoning, the Court concluded that Ancheta was illegally dismissed.

Awards of Backwages and Separation Pay

The Court als

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms