[

G.R. No.20
29 6
. Jun
e 1
8,20
14.
]

MAR
LO A
.DEO ,p
FERI
O et
it
i ,vs.I
oner NTE
L TE
CHNOLO
GY PHI
LIPPI
NES,I
NC.
and/
orMI
KE WEN N,
TLI Gr
esp on
dent.
s

Facts:

I
ntel Tech
nology Phil
i
ppi
nes,(Inn
c.
I
t
el) employe
d Deofer
io as a pr oduct qual
it
y and rel
i
abil
it
y
engi
neer
.I nt
el assi
gned him to the United Stat
es as a validat
i
on engineer f
or an agreed per
iod of two
year
s.How ever
, Deofer
io was er
patr
iat
ed tot he Phi
l
ippi
nes aft
er bei
ng confined at Prov
i
denceSt . Vi
ncent
Medical Cent
er orf ajmor epdressi
on wi t
h psychosi
s.In t he Phil
ipp
i
ne s, he workedas a pr oduct
engi
neer
.

Deof
erio underwent a se r
ies of medica l and psychiat
ri
c treat
ment at I nt
el'
s exp
ense af
ter his
confinem entin the Uni t
ed States.eHwasdi ag no
sedbysever alphysi
cians that suffer
i
ng fr
om moo d
di
sorder
, maj or depressi
on, and audit
ory hallucinat
i
on. Af t
er se ve
ral consul
tat
ions,Dr. Lee issu
ed a
psychi
atri
c report concl
uding and stat
ing that Deof er
io'
s psychot
ic sympt
oms ar e not r cu
abl
e withi
n a
per
iod of si x mon t
hs an d " wil
l ne gat
ivel
y affe ct i s
h wor k an d soci al elrat
i
on wit
h hi s co-
worker
[s].
" Pur su
ant to htesefindings,Int
el issued D eof
eri
o anot iceof terminati
on on March10, 2006.

Deoferi
o responded t o hi
s e t
rminati
on of empl oyment by lfi
ing a co
mplaint f
or i
l
legal dismi
ssal wi
th
pr
ayerf or onmeycl aims a ga
inst r
espon denst nt
Iel andMi ke (
rWen
espot
li
ng
nden
t
s). He de ned
i t hat he
ever had ment al i
l
lnessand i nsist
ed that he sa ti
sf
actori
l
y p er
for
med his duti
es a s apr oductengineer
. He
ar
gued t hat I
ntel vi
olated hi
s stat
utory right t
o proce dur
al due processwhen i t su
mmarily ss
iued a notice
of t
erminati
on.

I
n de f
ense,t he respondents a r
gued that Deof er
io'
s d i
smi
ssa l was b ased on Dr. Lee'
s cer t
ifica
ti
on
t
ha t
:( 1) s hischi
zophreni
a was no t cur
able wi t
hin a pe ri
od of x simon ths eve
n wi t
h pr oper m edical
t
reatment; and ( 2) s hiconti
nued em pl
oymen t wou l
d be pr ej
udi
cialt o his a nd to the other em ployees'
healt
h. T he respondents al
soi nsi
sted that Deofer
io's p r
esenceat I ntel
'
s p r
emises woul
d po sean act ual
harm t o his co-employees asshow n byhi s pr evi
ou s acts.On May8,20 03
, Deofer
io em ai
ledanI nt
el
em pl
oyee wi
th hi
ts m essage:" Allsoul'
s day ba ck ot w ork M on
da y W W45 .
1". On Januayr 18, 2005, hecut
t
he mou se cables, st
epped on t he keyboards, an d disarr
angedt he de sksfo hi
s co-empl
oyees. he T
respondenst al
sohi ghl
i
ghted tha t Deofer
io incur
red nu merous absences fr
om wor k due to his men t
al
condit
ion, sp
ecifical
l
y,f r
om Ja nuar y 31, 2002 until February 28, 2002,f rom Aug ust2002 u nti
l Septembe r

20
02, an
d fr
om May20
03 un
ti
l Jul
y 20
03. D
eof
eri
o al
sot
ook a
n ad
mini
st
r
ati
vel
eavewi
t
h pa
y r
f
om
Jan
uar
y 200
5 un
t
i
lDece
mbe
r 20
05.

The r espo
ndents fur
ther asse
rt
ed that he
t t wi
n-no
ti
ce requr
iemen
t ni di
smi
ssal
s does no
t appl
y to
t
erminati
ons under Art
icl
e 284 ofLabor
t
he Code
. Th
ey emphasi
zedhat
t
he
t Lab
orCode
'
simpl
ement
i
ng
rul
es(IRR) onl
y requir
es a co mpet
ent pu
bl
ic heal
th aut
hor
it
y'
s cert
ifica
t
i
on to effeci
ve
tly t
ermi
nat
e the
servi
ces of an employe
e.

I
ssues
:
(
1) he
Wther Deo
fer
i
o wassuff
eri
ngfr
om schi
zop
hr
enia and whethe
r hi
s co
nt
i
nuedem
ploym
en
t
was p
r
ejudi
ci
al t
o hi
s h
eal
t
h, as w
el
l as o
tthe heal
th of hi
s co-
empl
oye
es;

(
2) Whet
her t
he w
ti
n-not
icer
equi
rement i
n d
i
smi
ssa
l
s a
ppl
i
es o
tter
minat
ions d
ue t
o di
sease
; and

Rul
ing:

1)
I
ntelhadanau
t
hor
ized
cau
se otdi
smi
ss eo
Df
eri
ofr
om em
ploym
C en
on
c t
o
m.
it
antt
o he
t
employ
er'
s i rht t
g o freely sel
ectand e ngage a
n employee s ihte employer'
s ir
ght to d i
scharge the
employe
ef or j
ustand/or authori
zed causes.Tovali
dl
y e ffectter
minati
ons o f empl
oy ment,t hedi schar
ge
must be for a l i
d
va causei nt heman nerreq
uri
edbyl aw. Thepur poseof t heset wo-prongedqu aifica
l t
ion
s
i
s ot protectthe wor ki
ng classf r
om the empl
oyer
's arbi
tr
ary and unreasonable exerci
seof i t
s ir
ght to
di
smiss. Thus,in etrminati
on cases,the aw
l pl
aces he
t bur den of proof upon hte e mployert o show by
subst
anti
al evi
dencet hatt he ter
minat
ion was o
fra law f
ul causeand i nt he mann er requir
ed byl aw.In
concr
ete etrms,these u q
al
ifica
ti
ons em bo
dy he
t due process eq
ruri
em entin ablo r
su
bca
st se
ans
t
ive—
and procedur
aldu e pr .
oce Sub
ss sat
nti
ve ue
d pr
oces m ea
ns hat
t thet ermi
nat
ionmust beba
sed o
n
j
ustand/
oraut
hori
zedcaus
esofdismissal
.Ont
heot
herhand,pr
ocedur
aldueprocessr
equi
rest
he
employe
rto e ffe
ctthe d i
smissa
lin amanner spt
ehe
cifie
Lab
d or
ni Code
and it
s
IRR.

Thepres
ent ca
seinvo
lvest
ermi
nat
i
ondu e o
t di
sea
se— anau t
hor
ize
d cau
sef ordi
smi
ssa
l un
der
Ar
ti
cl
e 284 of h
Labor
te Code
.Assu
bstant
ive r
equi
rem
en,t
t
s he Labor
ode
an
Cd i
ts
I
RR requi
re t
he

pr
ese
nceof t
he f
oll
owi
ng el
ement
s:
(
1)An employerhas be
enfou
ndt
o b
e su
ffe
r
ingf
rom an
y di
sea
se.

(
2) Hi
s cont
i
nued employment i
s pr
ohi
bit
ed byl
aw or pr
ejudi
ci
al t
o hi
s h
eal
t
h, as w
el
l as
tothe heal
th of hi
s co-
empl
oyees.

(
3) A co
mpet
ent publi
c heal
th aut
hor
it
y cer
ti
fies h
tat t
he di
seasei
s o
f su
chnat
ure or at
su
cha stag e thatit cann
ot be cur
edwithi
n a peri
odofsix mon
thseve
n wit
h
pr
op
ermed icaltrea
tment
. DaHSIT

Wit
h respecto t t
he fir st and seco
nd elemen
ts, he
t Cou rt i
be
lr
all
y constr
ue d the ph
r
ase
"prej
udici
al t
o his hea as
lh wel
t l ast
o the heal
th of hi
s co-
employees" otmean " pr
ejudi
ci
al t
o hi
s
heal
thorto the healt
h ofhi s co-
employees"
. We di
d notlimitthe scopeof thi
s p hraseto co
ntagi
ous
di
seases ofrthe reason thatthi
s p hr
aseis prece
ded byt
ah
neypd
h
i
se
ra
ase
se
""un
der Art
icl
e 284 of
t
he Labor Code
,
to wit
:
Art. 28
4.
Disease as ground f ort erminati—. An em
on ploy
er aym t er
mi nat
e t he
servi
cesfo anem pl
oyee whohas been found t
o besufferany
i
ngdi
sease
from and
who secont
inuedem ploymentis proh i
bit
edbyl awpr
ej
orudi
ci
sial othis hea l
th as
well as otthe healt
h of his co-em p:
l Pee
oyrov
i
sded, That he i
s p ai
d se parat
ion pay
equiva
l
ent t
o at leastone ( 1) month sa l
ary o rto one-hal
f( 1/
2) mont h salary of
r ever
y
year of ser
vice
, w hi
chever si greater
, af r
act
ion of ateast l x si(6) m onths bei
ng
consi
der
ed as one 1() whol
e year.[ undersco
res,it
ali
cs nad emphase s ou r
s]

Consist
ent wi
th t
his c
onst
r
uct
i
on, we applied t
his pr
ovisi
on in r
esol
vi
ng i
l
legal di
sm i
ssal ca
ses d
ue
t
onon-
cont
agious di
seasessu
chas st
roke, hear
t att
ack, ost
eoart
hri
ti
s,and eyecatar
act, among ot
hers.
InBabyBus,I nc.v.Mi nist
er of ,Lab
we
orupheld the labor ar bi
trat
ion's finding that Jacni
to Mangali
no'
s
conti
nued em ployment — af t
er e h suffered severalst r
okes — wou l
d be pr ej
udi
cialt o his heatl
h.
In Dutert
e v.Ki ng swood Tr adng Co,
i .,Iw
e.r
nc ecogni
zed t he appl i
ca bi
li
ty of Ar ti
cl
ethe
284Labo
ofr
Code o
t heart at
tacks.In t hat case, we held that the empl oyer-company'sf ai
lur
e to present a cert
ific
ati
on
fr
om a publ i
c h eal
th authorit
y e r
ndered Roque Duterte's etr
mi nat
ion due t o a heart att
acki l
l
egal. We also
appli
ed thi
s p r
ovisi
onSyi
n v. Cou r
t ofAppeto
asd
l et
ermi
ne w hether Ja i
me S ahotwas l l
i
egall
y d i
smi
ssed
due t o various ai l
men t
s su ch as pr esl
eyo pi
a, hyp ert
ens i
ve r eti
no pat
hy, st eo
oart
hri
ti
s, nda he art
enlar
gement, amon g other
s. I
nl
Man y Exp r
ess,Inc. v.Payon
, g,. w
r
J e ul
redt hatt heem pl
oyer
-companys'
non-pr
esentment of a ce rti
ficati
on from a pub l
i
c heal t
h au thori
ty wi t
h resp ectto Romual do Payong Jr
.'
s
eyeca tar
actwas a ft
al t
o i t
s d ef
ense. ACaTIc

The t hi
rd elem su
entbst
anti
atest he con
tent
i
on thatthe empl
oyee has indeed been sufferi
ng
f
rom a di se
aset hat
:( 1) siprej
udi
ci
al to hi
s heal
t
h as wel
l as to the heal
th of hi
s co-
empl oye
es;and (
2)
cannotbecu redwi thi
n a peri
odof si x mont
hseve n wi
t
h prop
er edmicaltr
eatment
. Wit
houtthemed i
cal
cer
tific
at
e, htercan
e benoau t
ho r
ized cau
se
o
fr t
he employe
e'
s d
ismi
ssa
l. Theab sence ofthi
s el
em ent
t
hus e r
nder
s h te dismi
ssai
vol
dand i
ll .
egal

The certi
ficat
i
on fr
om a compet
ent pub
l
ic heatl
h aut
hori
ty is preci
sel
suy
bstt
anhe
t
ial
evi
dencee
rqui
red by l
aw t
o pr
ovet
he exi
st
enceof t
he di
seaseit
self
,it
s non-
cur
abi
l
it
y wit
hin a per
iod of
si
x mont
hs eve
n wi
t
h prop
er medi
calt
reat
ment
, and t
he pr
ejudi
cet
hat i
t woul
d ca
uset
o t
he heal
t
h of t
he
si
ck mpl
e oye
e a
ndto ho
tse fohis co-
em pl
oye
es.

In the curr
ent case, we agr
ee wi th the CA t hat Dr. Lee'
s psychi
atr
ic r
epor
t su bst
ant
ial
l
y proves
t
hat Deo fer
io was sufferi
ng fr
om schizophreni
a, that his d i
seasewas n otcu r
abl
e withi
n a per i
od of six
mont
hseve n with proper ed
micaltr
eatmen t
, and t hat his cont
inu
edem ployment wou
ld bepr ej
udi
ci
alto
hi
s m ental heal
t
h. This concl
usi
on i
s u fr
ther substant
iated by hte unusual and biza
r
re acts htat Deof
eri
o
commi
tted while atInt
el'
s employ.CASIEa

2)Thet
win-
not
icer
equi
rementappl
iest
oter
minat
ionsunderAr
ticl
e284oft
he abo .
L r Cod
eThe
LaborCode
and i
t
sI
RRar
e si
lent on pr
t
he
ocedur
aldue proce r
equi
ss red i
n ter
minati
ons due to
di
sease
. Desp
i
tetheseemi
ng ga pin ht
el aw
, Sect
i
on2, Rule 1, B
IR
oR
okexp
V
Ir
ess
oflyt
hes
t
ates h
tat
t
heem pl
oyee sho
ul
d b
e afforde
d proce
duraldu
e proce
alss
l ca
se
n
si o
f di
smiss
al
s.

InSy v.
Cou
rt ofAppan
ea
ld
sManl
y Exp
ress,I
nc ,
. v.Payon
, g
r
J. pr
omul
ga
tedi
n 20
03 nd
a 2005,
r
espe
ct
i
vel
y,t
he Cou
rt fin
aly
l pron
ounced t
he rul
e tha
tt he empl
oye
r mus
tfur
ni
sh t
he empl
oye
e t
wo

writ
ten noti
ces in ter
minat
ions due to disease
, namely:( 1) hte no ti
cet o app ri
se the empl oyee of he
t
ground for whi
chhi s dismi
ssalis sought
; and (2) t
he noti
cei nforming t
he empl oyee of his dismi
ssa
l,to be
i
ssued aft
er het em pl
oyee has be
en givenr easona
ble opport
un i
ty to answ er and t
o be he adr on hi
s
defense
. Theser ul
i
ngs eri
nforcethe Stat
e poli
cy f oprot
ect
ing the wor ke
rs r f
om being terminat
ed wit
hout
causeand w i
thout affo
rdi
ng h t
em the opport
uni
ty ot expl
ai
n thei
r si de of t
he c ont
rover
sy.