ROLANDO B. MESINA, PETITIONER, V. OMANFIL INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MODH ALZOABI TECHNICAL PROJECTS CORPORATION, HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION A…

Mesina versus Omanfil International Manpower Development Corporation

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Rolando Mesina, an overseas Filipino worker deployed to Saudi Arabia as an expediter, against his recruitment agency Omanfil International Manpower Development Corporation and its foreign principal, Modh Al-Zoabi Technical Projects Corporation. Mesina was repatriated after suffering chest pains and being diagnosed with a heart condition, and he now asks the Supreme Court to reverse the labor tribunals, which had upheld his separation from service as valid. The case matters because it tests the strict requirements for terminating an overseas worker on the ground of disease, and because it fixes the joint and several liability of the principal and the agency for the worker's money claims.

Procedural History

Mesina filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, refund of medical and hospital expenses, refund of placement fee, and moral and exemplary damages before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the claim for illegal dismissal for lack of merit but ordered the respondents to pay separation pay equivalent to four thousand Saudi Riyals, and dismissed all other claims. Mesina appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter in a Decision dated May 29, 2009 and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. His motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated February 26, 2010. Mesina then filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, assailing both the Decision and the Resolution of the Commission.

Facts

Omanfil hired Mesina for overseas work and deployed him to its principal, Modh Al-Zoabi, with assignment at Al Khaji Joint Operations in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. His employment contract, effective May 4, 2005, was for twenty-four months at a monthly salary of four thousand Saudi Riyals. It provided that if the employee could not discharge his duties through accident or illness incurred while working, medical treatment would be provided free by the employer, and that if the illness prolonged or was found to be permanent, the employee would be returned to his point of departure at the employer's expense. Mesina left for Saudi Arabia on May 4, 2005 and began working on May 7, 2005.

In the first week of February 2006, on his ninth month at the job site, Mesina experienced chest pains. He was admitted to a local hospital on February 11, 2006, diagnosed with a heart disease, and discharged in good condition. A few days later, on February 18, 2006, he was brought again to the same hospital because of chest pain; his condition normalized, but the doctor advised an immediate angiogram test in a more equipped hospital, and he was discharged on February 19, 2006. The following day, the principal requested that Mesina be repatriated immediately in view of his serious medical condition. He was repatriated on February 22, 2006.

On July 5, 2006, Mesina filed his complaint against Omanfil as agent and Modh Al-Zoabi as principal. The Labor Arbiter denied the claim for illegal dismissal but granted separation pay; the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed. Mesina then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, insisting that his repatriation was not voluntary and that no just or authorized cause supported the pre-termination of his contract.

Issues

• Whether or not Mesina was illegally dismissed when his employment contract was pre-terminated and he was repatriated without any just or authorized cause.
• Whether or not his heart disease could be considered an authorized cause for termination under the Labor Code and the implementing rules.
• Whether or not the principal and the agency are jointly and severally liable for the monetary awards due him.

Applicable Provisions

Article 284 of the Labor Code provides:

Article 284. Disease as a 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 prejudicial to his health as well as the health of his co-employees.

This is the substantive ground invoked by the respondents, and it requires that the disease be of a character that makes continued employment prohibited or prejudicial.

Section 8, Rule I of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides:

Section 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 authority that the disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six months with proper medical treatment. If the disease or ailment can be cured within the period, 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.

This provision supplies the procedural safeguard, the required certification, that the employer failed to produce.

Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, provides:

In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract.

This is the basis for the monetary awards once the dismissal is declared illegal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Mesina was illegally dismissed. His contract was pre-terminated and he was repatriated without any showing that his disease had been prolonged or found to be permanent, which were the very conditions in his employment contract that would justify return to his point of departure. At the time of repatriation, only ten days from his first hospitalization, there was no finding that his disease was permanent.

On the second issue, the Court held that the disease could not be considered an authorized cause because the respondents failed to comply with Article 284 of the Labor Code and Section 8, Rule I of the Omnibus Rules. The Court stressed that the employer must prove the requisites for a valid dismissal due to disease, including the certification by a competent public authority. Quoting its earlier ruling, the Court declared:

The requirement for a medical certificate under Article 284 of the Labor Code cannot be dispensed with; otherwise, it would sanction the unilateral and arbitrary determination by the employer of the gravity or extent of the employee's illness and thus defeat the public policy on the protection of labor.

On the third issue, the Court held that the principal and the agency are jointly and severally liable. Pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, Mesina was entitled to full reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract. Because the records were insufficient to compute the amounts, the Court remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter for that purpose.

Doctrine

For a dismissal on the ground of disease to be valid, two requisites must concur: first, the employee suffers from a disease that cannot be cured within six months and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-employees; and second, a certification to that effect must be issued by a competent public health authority. The burden of proving the validity of the dismissal rests on the employer, and the absence of the required certification renders the dismissal illegal. Where an overseas worker is terminated without just, valid, or authorized cause, the principal and the agency are jointly and severally liable for the full reimbursement of the placement fee with twelve percent interest per annum, plus salaries for the unexpired portion of the contract.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Decision and Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission were set aside and reversed, and the respondents were declared liable for illegal dismissal and ordered to pay Mesina jointly and severally, with the case remanded to the Labor Arbiter for computation of the monetary awards.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: a dismissal based on disease is invalid without a certification from a competent public health authority that the illness cannot be cured within six months. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of a valid disease dismissal and the joint and several liability of the recruitment agency and its foreign principal.