PHILSA CONSTRUCTION AND TRADING CO., AND ARIEB ENTERPRISES, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND FERNANDO HIPOLITO, RESPONDENTS.

The petitioners question the resolution of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) which affirmed the decision of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration ordering them to pay monetary benefits to
the private respondent. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering respondents
PHILSA Construction and Arieb Enterprises liable to pay Fernando D. Hipolito,
within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of this order, the peso equi­valent
at the time of actual payment of FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETY US DOLLARS
(US$5,490.00) representing the monetary equivalent of the unexpired portion of
complainant’s employment contract, plus ten percent (10%) thereof by way of and
as attorney’s fees.

“All other claims are hereby dismissed.” (p. 15, Rollo)

The respondent’s brief
filed by the Solicitor General correctly states the facts of this case as
follows:

“Sometime in 1982, private res­pondent applied as bridge
foreman with petitioner Philsa Construction and Trading Co. (Philsa, for
brevity) for deployment in Saudi Arabia under co-petitioner Arieb
Enterprises. However, his medical
report dated November 12, 1982 noted that he had basal cell carcinoma on his
right upper lip which is a form of skin cancer. Thus, Philsa refused to deploy Hipolito since it was aware ‘that
sickness of that nature is usually aggravated by exposure to the sun and
excessive heat’ (Philsa position paper dated January 24, 1984).

“On January 7, 1983, Hipolito underwent surgery to remove the
skin cancer. Early in February 1983,
Hipolito refiled his application for overseas employment with Philsa. Upon examination by Philsa’s medical clinic,
Hipolito was certified to be ‘fit for duty’ on March 12, 1983. Four days later, on March 16, 1983, Hipolito
was deployed to Arieb Enterprises for a one-year contract as bridge foreman at
a basic monthly salary of US $610.00.

“On May 18, 1983,
Hipolito was subjected to a medical examination by the Green Crescent
Health Services. It noted that his face
has pre?malignant lesions, which are diagnosed as melanoma and sehorrheic
karatosis, which is a form of skin cancer. The doctor advised him to avoid sun exposure and to use a sun screen
(Annex A, peti­tion). Petitioner Arieb
Enterprises, upon being apprised of Hipolito’s medical condition, decided to
terminate his employment effective June 15, 1983. Hipolito was eventually repatriated to the Philippines.

“Sometime in August 1983 Hipolito filed a pro forma complaint for illegal dismissal with
the POEA. However, he followed it up
with a formal complaint on October 28, 1983. Hipolito and Philsa filed their res­pective position papers on January
17, 1984 and February 2, 1984, respectively. On the basis of these position papers, the POEA Administrator found
petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal on September 28, 1984. On appeal, respondent NLRC affirmed the
decision of the POEA on April 30, 1985 (Annex B, petition). A writ of execution was issued on June 11,
1985 and it was partly satisfied in the amount of P50,000 on June 26,
1985. Petitioners filed a petition for
relief on July 29, 1985, which was denied in a resolution dated December 16,
1985 (Annex D, petition). x x x.” (Rollo,
69; Public Respondent’s Brief, pp. 1-4)

The petitioners frame the
issue raised in this peti­tion as a grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC when
it disregarded Article 285 of the Labor Code as the basis for termination.

The cited article of the
Labor Code provides:

“ART. 285. Disease as 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 is prejudicial to his
health as well as to the health of his co-employees: Provided, That he is paid separation pay
equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one half (1/2) month salary
for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six (6)
months being consi­dered as one (1) whole year.”

The petitioners argue
that Fernando Hipolito is suffering from cancerous pre-malignant lesions in the
face/melanoma and sehorrheic keratosis and that continued employment would
prejudice his health. They state that
when the conditions enumerated in Article 285 of the Labor Code are present,
the employer may terminate the services of the employee. The petitioners stress that climatic
conditions in Saudi Arabia would specially aggravate Mr. Hipolito’s cancerous
skin lesions.

The fallacy in the petitioners’ reasoning lies in their failure to
accept the fact that they brought respondent Hipolito to Saudi Arabia with full
knowledge of his skin ailment.

In November, 1982, Philsa refused to deploy Mr. Hipolito to Saudi
Arabia because of his basal cell carci­noma on his right upper lip. The respondent underwent skin surgery to
excise the cancer on January 7, 1983. He re-applied for employment abroad, was medically examined in the
Philsa clinic, was certified fit for duty, and then sent abroad.

The peculiar requirements of employment in the Middle East have
led the POEA to mandate specially rigid medical examinations for applicants
before they may be shipped abroad to work for the Saudi Arabian principals of
the Philippine agents. If an employer
or contractor violates this requirement, he has no reason to complain when the
full force of the law is later exerted against him and remedies for damages,
illegal dismissals, etc., are
imposed. In this case, the petitioners
were fully aware of Mr. Hipolito’s skin condition when they executed the
contract of employment with him. He was
examined in the petitioners’
clinic by their own
doctors. There was absolutely no
concealment of an ailment by Mr. Hipolito. The disease was not a latent one which suddenly flared up in the Middle
East. Being at fault, in the resulting
breach of that contract, the petitioners have to accept the consequences.

More important, it is not clear from the records that the
essential requirements in Article 285 of the Labor Code have been met. There is no showing that the skin disease is
so prejudicial to Mr. Hipolito’s health that he had to be repatriated even
before the term in his contract had expired. Apparently, Green Crescent Health Services in Saudi Arabia did not consi­der
the ailment so prejudicial as to warrant repatria­tion. The doctor in Saudi Arabia merely advised
the avoidance of sun exposure and the use of a sun screen. The doctor said Hipolito could continue
working. All that was needed was to
take some simple precautions. We can
take judicial notice of the fact that a President of the United States suffers
from the same ailment as Mr. Hipolito and underwent similar surgery. There is clearly no plan to have Mr. Ronald
Reagan retire from the Presidency or to have his employment summarily termi­nated
for that reason alone.

Instead of exerting efforts to locate suitable employment for the
worker whom they had medically examined and declared fit for employment abroad,
the petitioners summarily dismissed him.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The questioned resolutions of the National
Labor Relations Commission are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.