Understanding Illegal Dismissal: Employer’s Responsibility to Employees

G.R. No. 116807, April 14, 1997

Imagine being fired from your job after years of service, simply because you filed a labor complaint or became ill. This is the reality for many Filipino workers, and the Supreme Court case of Mariano N. Tan v. National Labor Relations Commission sheds light on the critical issue of illegal dismissal. This case underscores the importance of due process and the employer’s responsibility to act fairly and within the bounds of the law when terminating an employee.

The case revolves around two employees, Romeo Garrido and Antonio Ibutnandi, who were terminated from Carter’s General Sales. Garrido was allegedly dismissed for abandonment after a work-related injury, while Ibutnandi was terminated due to his tuberculosis diagnosis. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that both dismissals were illegal, highlighting the employer’s failure to follow proper procedures and demonstrating discriminatory intent.

Legal Context: Protecting Workers’ Rights in the Philippines

Philippine labor laws are designed to protect employees from unfair labor practices, including illegal dismissal. The Labor Code of the Philippines outlines the valid grounds for termination and the procedures employers must follow. Two key provisions are particularly relevant to this case:

• Article 282 (now Article 297) outlines the just causes for termination, such as serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duties, fraud or willful breach of trust, and commission of a crime or offense against the employer or his family.
• Article 284 (now Article 301) addresses the termination of employees due to disease. It states that an employer may terminate an employee suffering from a disease when continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to their health or the health of co-employees.

However, Article 284 is not a free pass for employers to simply dismiss sick employees. The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, specifically Section 8, Rule I, Book VI, provides a crucial safeguard:

“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 a competent public authority that the disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six (6) months even with proper medical treatment.”

This rule places the burden on the employer to prove that the employee’s disease is incurable within six months, supported by a certification from a public health authority. Without this certification, dismissal based on illness is deemed illegal.

Furthermore, the concept of abandonment requires a clear and deliberate intent to sever the employer-employee relationship. Mere absence from work is not sufficient; there must be a clear indication that the employee no longer intends to return to their job.

For example, an employee who is absent due to a legitimate illness and communicates this to the employer cannot be considered to have abandoned their job. Similarly, an employee who is prevented from returning to work due to the employer’s actions cannot be accused of abandonment.

Case Breakdown: A Story of Unfair Dismissal

The story begins with Romeo Garrido, a delivery helper, injuring his hand while lifting heavy boxes. Despite his injury, he was pressured to continue working. When he refused, he was served a notice to explain why he shouldn’t be disciplined. Upon returning to work after treatment, he was essentially told he was no longer needed.

Antonio Ibutnandi, the driver, was dismissed for failing to provide a medical certificate from a government doctor proving he was cured of tuberculosis. This occurred after he and Garrido filed a labor standards complaint against their employer.

The Labor Arbiter initially sided with the employer, but the NLRC reversed this decision, finding the dismissals illegal. The NLRC concluded that the dismissals were a retaliatory response to the labor standards complaint. The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s decision, emphasizing the employer’s failure to comply with the requirements for valid dismissal.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• January 16, 1989: Garrido and Ibutnandi file a labor standards complaint.
• January 28, 1989: Garrido injures his hand.
• February 7, 1989: Garrido is effectively terminated.
• March 31, 1989: Ibutnandi is dismissed after his sick leave expires.

The Supreme Court highlighted the lack of due process and the discriminatory intent behind the dismissals. As the court stated:

“It would be the height of injustice to allow an employer to claim as a ground for abandonment a situation which he himself had brought about.”

Regarding Ibutnandi’s dismissal, the Court emphasized the employer’s obligation to obtain a certification from a competent public authority regarding the incurability of his disease:

“Clearly, it is only where there is a prior certification from a competent public authority that the disease afflicting the employee sought to be dismissed is of such nature or at such stage that it cannot be cured within six (6) months even with proper medical treatment that the latter could be validly terminated from his job.”

Practical Implications: Protecting Yourself from Illegal Dismissal

This case serves as a reminder to both employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities. Employers must adhere to the strict requirements of the Labor Code when terminating an employee, ensuring due process and avoiding discriminatory practices.

For employees, this case reinforces the importance of knowing their rights and seeking legal assistance when faced with unfair labor practices. It also highlights the importance of documenting all communications and incidents related to their employment.

Key Lessons:

• Due Process is Essential: Employers must follow proper procedures when terminating an employee, including providing notice and an opportunity to be heard.
• Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies with the employer to justify a dismissal, whether it’s for abandonment or illness.
• Medical Certification: Dismissing an employee based on illness requires a certification from a competent public authority regarding the incurability of the disease.
• Retaliation is Illegal: Employers cannot retaliate against employees for filing labor complaints.

Consider this hypothetical: An employee is frequently absent due to a family emergency. The employer, without proper investigation or warning, terminates the employee for habitual absenteeism. Based on this case, the dismissal would likely be deemed illegal due to the lack of due process and failure to consider the employee’s circumstances.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is illegal dismissal?

Illegal dismissal occurs when an employee is terminated without just cause or without following the proper procedure outlined in the Labor Code.

What are the valid grounds for termination?

Valid grounds for termination include serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross neglect of duties, fraud, and commission of a crime. These are stipulated in the Labor Code.

What is the proper procedure for terminating an employee?

The employer must provide the employee with a written notice stating the grounds for termination and an opportunity to be heard. A second notice of termination must then be served if a decision to terminate is made.

What should I do if I believe I have been illegally dismissed?

You should immediately consult with a labor lawyer to assess your case and determine the appropriate course of action. You can file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

What are my rights if I am terminated due to illness?

Your employer must obtain a certification from a competent public authority that your disease is incurable within six months. Without this certification, your dismissal is likely illegal.

Can I be dismissed for being frequently absent?

Habitual absenteeism can be a valid ground for termination, but the employer must prove that your absences were without justifiable cause and that you were given proper warnings.

What is abandonment of work?

Abandonment requires a clear and deliberate intent to sever the employer-employee relationship. Mere absence from work is not enough.

What compensation am I entitled to if I am illegally dismissed?

You are entitled to reinstatement to your former position, back wages from the time of your dismissal until reinstatement, and other benefits.

ASG Law specializes in labor law and employment disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.