12.

Del Monte Philippines v Velasco

G.R. NO. 153477  The Court agrees with the CA in concluding that respondent’s sickness
March 6, 2007 was pregnancy-related and, therefore, the petitioner cannot terminate
TOPIC: DISCHARGE BECAUSE OF PREGNANCY respondent’s services because in doing so, petitioner will, in effect, be
PETITIONER: DEL MONTE violating the Labor Code which prohibits an employer to discharge an
RESPONDENT: LOLITA VELASCO employee on account of the latter’s pregnancy.

FACTS:  Article 137 of the Labor Code provides:

 Respondent Lolita M. Velasco started working with Del Monte Philippines o Art. 137. Prohibited acts. – It shall be unlawful for any
as a Field Worker. employer:
 On June 16, 1987, petitioner warned respondent about her absences
 On May 4, 1991, petitioner warned respondent about her absences. (1) To deny any woman employee the benefits provided for in this
 On the year 1992, another warning to respondent regarding her absences Chapter or to discharge any woman employed by him for the
without permission during the year 1991-1992. purpose of preventing her from enjoying any of the benefits
provided under this Code;
 On September 17, 1994, a notice of hearing was sent to respondent
(2) To discharge such woman on account of her pregnancy, while
notifying her of the charges filed against her for violating the Absence
on leave or in confinement due to her pregnancy; or
Without Official Leave rule.
(3) To discharge or refuse the admission of such woman upon
 On January 10, 1995, after hearing, the petitioner terminated the services
returning to her work for fear that she may again be pregnant.
of respondent.
 Feeling aggrieved, respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal against
 The Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the NLRC and
petitioner asserting that her dismissal was illegal because she was
the CA that:
suffering from urinary tract infection, a pregnancy-borne, at the time she
(1) the respondent was able to subsequently justify her
committed the alleged absences.
absences in accordance with company rules and policy;
 She explained that she had sent an application for leave to her
(2) the respondent was pregnant at the time she incurred the
supervisor. Thereafter, she went to the company hospital for check-up
absences;
and was advised to rest. Unable to recover, she went to see another
(3) this fact of pregnancy and its related illnesses had been
doctor and the latter ordered her to rest for another 5consecutive days.
duly proven through substantial evidence;
She declared she did not file the adequate leave of absence because a
(4) that the respondent attempted to file leaves of absence
medical certificate was already sufficient per company policy.
but the petitioner’s supervisor refused to receive them;
 Petitioner’s contention that the cause for the dismissal was gross and
(5) that she could not have filed prior leaves due to her
habitual neglect unrelated to her state of pregnancy.
continuing condition; and
 Labor arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner. LA held that the respondent was (6) that the petitioner, in the last analysis, dismissed the
a habitual absentee. respondent on account of her pregnancy, a prohibited act.
 NLRC reversed the decision of the labor arbiter.
 CA affirmed the decision of NLRC

ISSUE: whether or not the petitioner illegally dismissed respondent on account of

pregnancy?

RULING: YES