In Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Supreme Court affirmed that an employee’s dismissal based on a medical condition without proper medical certification and due process is illegal. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to both the Labor Code’s requirements and the employer’s internal policies regarding sick leave and medical retirement. This ruling underscores the necessity for employers to provide substantial evidence and follow established procedures when terminating employees for health-related reasons, ensuring fairness and protecting workers from arbitrary decisions.

When a Cabin Attendant’s Asthma Diagnosis Led to a Contentious Termination

Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. (CATHAY) sought to overturn the Court of Appeals’ decision which had declared the dismissal of Martha Z. Singson as illegal. Singson, a cabin attendant based in Hong Kong, was terminated after company doctors diagnosed her with asthma. CATHAY argued that her condition rendered her unfit for flight duties. Singson contested the diagnosis and the manner of her dismissal, leading to a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court. The central legal question revolved around whether CATHAY followed the correct procedure in terminating Singson’s employment based on medical grounds.

The case originated from Singson’s complaint of illegal dismissal filed with the Labor Arbiter. She claimed that her termination was abrupt and without due process. CATHAY, on the other hand, maintained that the decision was based on medical advice, citing aviation risks associated with asthma. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Singson, awarding her back wages, damages, and reinstatement. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, declaring the dismissal valid based on the testimony of CATHAY’s doctors and newly-discovered evidence.

The Court of Appeals then reversed the NLRC’s ruling, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The appellate court highlighted several deficiencies in CATHAY’s handling of the dismissal, including the lack of a certification from a competent public health authority and the failure to follow the company’s internal procedures. CATHAY then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, questioning the Court of Appeals’ review of factual findings and the admissibility of certain evidence.

In resolving the dispute, the Supreme Court addressed several key issues. First, the Court clarified the scope of review for certiorari petitions under Rule 65, noting that the Court of Appeals was justified in examining the evidence to resolve conflicting decisions between the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. The Court also addressed the admissibility of Dr. Fahy’s affidavit, recognizing the liberal approach to evidence in labor cases. Citing Canete v. NLRC, the Court reiterated that strict adherence to technical rules of evidence is not always required in labor disputes.

Section 3, Rule V, of the New Rules of procedure of the NLRC specifically allows parties to submit position papers accompanied by all supporting documents including affidavits of their respective witnesses which take the place of their testimonies.

Despite acknowledging the admissibility of the affidavit, the Court ultimately sided with Singson, emphasizing the procedural lapses in her dismissal. The Court highlighted the importance of Section 8, Rule I, Book VI, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, which requires a certification from a competent public health authority when disease is the ground for dismissal.

SEC. 8. Disease as a ground for dismissal. – Where the employee suffers from a disease and his continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health or to the health of his-co-employees, the employer shall not terminate his employment unless there is a certification by competent public health authority that the disease is of such nature or at a such stage it cannot be cured within a period of six (6) months even with proper medical treatment.

CATHAY failed to provide such certification, relying solely on the opinions of its company doctors. This failure was a critical factor in the Court’s decision. Furthermore, the Court noted that CATHAY did not demonstrate that Singson’s asthma could not be cured within six months, as required by law. The Court contrasted CATHAY’s actions with the procedural requirements outlined in its own Conditions of Service. Clause 22 of the contract specified a process for handling serious illnesses, including granting sick leave and considering medical retirement only after a specified period.

The Court pointed out that CATHAY prematurely terminated Singson’s employment without allowing her to avail of the sick leave benefits provided in the contract. This disregard for established procedures further supported the finding of illegal dismissal. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ award of moral and exemplary damages, citing CATHAY’s failure to observe the Labor Code and its own contractual obligations. The decision to dismiss Singson was reached after only a single examination, despite indications of improvement in her condition. CATHAY’s actions were deemed a violation of Singson’s rights as an employee.

The Cathay Pacific case serves as a reminder of the importance of due process and legal compliance in employment termination. Employers must adhere to both the Labor Code and their own internal policies when dealing with employee health issues. A medical diagnosis alone is insufficient grounds for dismissal; a certification from a competent public health authority is required, along with adherence to contractual provisions for sick leave and medical retirement. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to employees against arbitrary dismissal and underscores the employer’s responsibility to act fairly and in accordance with the law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Cathay Pacific Airways illegally dismissed Martha Z. Singson based on a medical condition without proper certification from a competent public health authority as required by the Labor Code.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, declaring Singson’s dismissal illegal. The Court emphasized the need for employers to comply with the Labor Code and their own internal policies regarding sick leave and medical retirement.
What is the requirement for dismissing an employee based on disease?	Section 8, Rule I, Book VI, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code requires a certification from a competent public health authority stating that the disease cannot be cured within six months even with proper medical treatment.
Did Cathay Pacific provide the required medical certification?	No, Cathay Pacific dismissed Singson based only on the recommendation of its company doctors without obtaining the necessary certification from a competent public health authority.
What damages were awarded to Singson?	Singson was awarded full back wages and benefits, moral damages of HK$500.00, exemplary damages of HK$500.00, and attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award.
What was the basis for awarding moral and exemplary damages?	The damages were awarded because Cathay Pacific summarily dismissed Singson without observing the provisions of the Labor Code, acting solely on the recommendation of its medical officers after a single examination.
What did the Court say about Cathay Pacific’s internal policies?	The Court noted that Cathay Pacific failed to follow its own Conditions of Service, which required offering sick leave before considering medical retirement, further supporting the finding of illegal dismissal.
Is an employer required to strictly follow the rules of evidence in labor cases?	No, the rules of evidence are applied liberally in labor cases. Affidavits and other documents can be admitted even if they do not strictly conform to technical rules, as long as they are relevant and credible.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Cathay Pacific Airways v. NLRC underscores the importance of due process and adherence to legal and contractual requirements when terminating employees based on medical grounds. Employers must ensure they obtain proper medical certifications and follow established procedures for sick leave and medical retirement to avoid liability for illegal dismissal.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Commission and Martha Z. Singson, G.R. Nos. 141702-03, August 02, 2001