G.R. No. 129584 – 359 Phil. 955 – 299 SCRA 608 – Labor Law – Post-Employment – Illegal Dismissal; Illness – Certification by a Competent Public Authority
In August 1992, the Gulf Catering Company, a foreign company operating in Saudi Arabia, recruited, through its Philippine agent, Triple Eight Integrated Services, Inc., the services of Erlinda Osdana. Osdana was contracted to work as a waitress in Saudi Arabia. Her employment contract was duly approved by the POEA. She was also medically examined and was declared “fit for employment.”
But when she was in Saudi, Osdana was instead forced to work as a dishwasher with a brutal shift which starts from 6am until 6pm and this was without overtime pay. Due to the heavy work she was made to suffer, there were months when she was unable to work. Eventually, she was diagnosed to be suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome. She then underwent two separate operations to fix her hands. She showed good signs and was recovering well. But four days after she was discharged from the hospital, her employment was terminated and was sent home to the Philippines. The reason for the termination was “illness”. She was not given any separation pay and apparently, her salaries were not fully paid.
In the Philippines, she sought the help of Triple Eight but the agency refused to help her hence she sued them.
In its defense, Triple Eight averred that Osdana’s employment was validly terminated due to her illness. Osdana however claimed that her carpal tunnel syndrome is not a ground for termination because it is not even a communicable disease and that under the implementing rules of the Labor Code, there should be a certification from a competent public authority that her illness is such that she can be validly dismissed from employment.
On that point, Triple Eight averred that the Labor Code of the Philippines does not apply because she worked in Saudi Arabia; and that considering that she worked in Saudi, it was not possible for her Arabian employer to get a certification from a Philippine public health authority.
The labor arbiter, as well as the NLRC, ruled in favor of Osdana.
ISSUE: Whether or not the arguments of Triple Eight are correct.
HELD: No. The Labor Code, as well as its implementing rules apply. The contract of employment was executed in the Philippines. Thus, following the principle of lex loci contractus, Philippine law shall apply. Further, it is the State’s policy to afford maximum protection to labor, domestic or overseas.
Anent the issue of securing a certification from a competent public authority, the pertinent rules are as follows:
As a general rule, an employer may dismiss an employee found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health as well as the health of his co-employees (Art. 284, Labor Code). There must be a certification by 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 with proper medical treatment (Section 8, Rule 1, Book VI, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code)
Except: If the disease or ailment can be cured within 6 months, the employer shall not terminate the employee but shall ask the employee to take a leave. The employer shall reinstate such employee to his former position immediately upon the restoration of his normal health (Section 8, Rule 1, Book VI, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code).
Nowhere in the rule does it state that the term “competent public authority” must be a Philippine authority. Hence, it can be a foreign competent authority, as in this case, it could be a competent public authority in Saudi Arabia – which Triple Eight’s principal (Gulf Catering) did not avail of.
