I.

Rationale

PEDRO V. SOLIS, petitioner, vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

and PHILEX MINING CORPORATION, respondents.

Petitioner, Pedro Solis was employed since August of 1972 as an

underground miner by private respondent Philex. Due to constant exposure to the
elements in the mining area, Solis became ill and was medically diagnosed
sometime in 1983 to be afflicted with "Koch's infection, exudative type, minimal (R)".
The examining physicians recommended that Solis be assigned to surface work to
facilitate his speedy recovery from the illness. This recommendation, including the
intercession of petitioner's union on October 1990, that Solis be reassigned
temporarily to surface work, were not heeded by Philex. The illness of Solis
aggravated. In his medical check-up at the Baguio General Hospital and Medical
Center, on March 21, 1991, Solis was diagnosed to be suffering from [1] Koch's
pulmonary bronchiectasis (PTB) commonly known as tuberculosis, [2] Bronchial,
asthma, and [3] Arthraglia, right shoulderand was declared "unfit to continue working
for underground mine". Solis was accordingly dismissed by Philex from service on
April 5, 1991, and given the amount of P55,121.85 as "separation pay".

After his dismissal from service, Solis submitted himself for medical
examination in another hospital, the Baguio Filipino Chinese Hospital, which issued a
medical certificate declaring him physically fit. Armed with this new medical
certificate, he went back to Philex demanding reinstatement, but to no avail. On May
6, 1991, Solis sued Philex for illegal dismissal. In its position paper, Philex alleged
that the dismissal is valid since Solis was suffering from contagious diseases. The
Labor Arbiter found that Solis' dismissal was illegal and ordered Philex to reinstate
him with backwages. Philex appealed to the NLRC which also ruled that Solis was
illegally dismissed, albeit it disallowed reinstatement in view of the alleged voluntary
acceptance by Solis of his "separation pay".

Petitioner Solis now comes to us on certiorari alleging that the NLRC

committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the Labor Arbiter's decision
ordering his reinstatement. Philex in its comment counters that the instant petition
should be dismissed for the failure of Solis to seek reconsideration of the NLRC
ruling before filing this petition and reiterates that Solis' dismissal was for a valid
cause. The Office of the Solicitor General for its part disputes the NLRC ruling and
prays for the reinstatement of Solis.

First, on the procedural lapse. Under Sec. 1 of Rule 65, a petition

for certiorari will lie if there is "no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law". A motion for reconsideration of an assailed decision is deemed a
plain and adequate remedy provided by law. In this case, Solis failed to file any
motion for reconsideration before elevating the case to the court; hence, ordinarily
this petition should have been dismissed outright. However, such procedural
technicality, if strictly adhered to, may cause injustice to an employee with a valid
claim. To prevent this miscarriage of justice, we deemed it necessary to gloss over
petitioner's failure to move for reconsideration and rule, instead, on the more
important issues attendant in this case, viz.: (1) whether or not Solis was dismissed
for a valid cause, and (2) whether or not Solis was estopped from demanding
reinstatement due to his acceptance of the "separation pay".

II. Issues and Concerns

1) Solis became ill and was medically diagnosedwith "Koch's infection;

2) Solis was recommended to be assigned temporarily to surface work but was

not heeded by Philex;

3) Solis illness aggravated. He was diagnosed to be suffering from: tuberculosis,

Bronchial, asthma, andArthraglia, right shoulder;

4) Solis was declared "unfit to continue working for underground mine";

5) Solis was illegally dismissed by Philex due to his contagiousdiseases;

6) Solis was given the amount of P55,121.85 as "separation pay";

7) Solis was declared “fit to work” after his third medical appointment.
 8) There is a reinstatement.

III. Point of View

This case study shall primarily focus on the point of view of the Petitioner –
Pedro V. Solisin order to answer the issues stated above.

IV. Statement of the Problem

1) What is the best decision that the Petitioner - Pedro V. Solisshould take as
response to the offered reinstatement?

V. Objectives

1) To discern the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with the

reinstatement of his employment;
2) To come up with a practical decision that best responses to the situation.

VI. Areas of Consideration

a) Solis was dismissed by Philex because of contagious disease;

b) Nothing in the medical certificate issued states that Solis' ailment cannot be
cured within six months;
c) The dismissal is illegal;
d) An illegally dismissed employee, like Solis, is entitled to reinstatement;
e) He filed the complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement a
month after his separation from service — a fact which strongly indicates that
he never waived his right to reinstatement;
f) Despite the lack of the required certification and the absence of estoppel, it
cannot be ignored that Solis was afflicted with tuberculosis, a contagious
disease.
g) Labor Arbiter deducted the P55,121.85 "separation pay" from the backwages
to which Solis is entitled.
h) If Solis will be reinstated, then he should not be entitled to separation pay.
Philex, instead, will have to pay him backwages, but less the P55,121.85,
which should be credited as part of his backwages.
 i) If reinstatement is no longer possible, Philex will pay him backwages and
separation pay. However, the amount he received should be deducted from
his separation pay instead of from the back wages.
j) The decision of the NLRC is ANNULLED, and the decision of the Labor
Arbiter is REINSTATED subject to the modification on the proper computation
of backwages and separation pay by the Labor Arbiter.

VII. Alternative Courses of Actions

1. Not to accept the reinstatement, move on, and just look for another job that is
more favourable on his health concern.

ADVANTAGES:

a) Comfortability to job and new work environment.

b) Health Advantage.
c) Philex will pay him backwages and separation pay.

DISADVANTAGES:

a) The amount of P55,121.85 he received will be deducted from his

separation pay instead of from the backwages.
b) Might not be employed again due to his medical history.

2. To accept the reinstatement.

ADVANTAGES:

a) Continuation of his long service to Philex.

b) No need to hunt another job to earn for a living.
c) Will be paid of backwages less the P55,121.85 that has been given by
Philex.
d) Philex possibly approved the recommendation of reassigning him to
surface work instead of going back to the underground mine.

DISADVANTAGES:

a) Work relationship gap.

 b) No more separation pay.

3. To accept the reinstatement but shall retain to work underground.

ADVANTAGES:

a) Continuation of his long service to Philex.

b) No need to hunt another job to earn for a living.
c) Shall receive his financial benefits.

DISADVANTAGES:

a) Work relationship gap.

b) No more separation pay.
c) Compromise his health situation.
d) Health issues may aggravate again.

VIII. Recommendation

Based on the three (3) alternative courses of actions stated above, we

highlyrecommendACA#2as the best and most practical solution to execute since it is
strongly supported by the labor code of the Philippines, Article 284.

IX. Plan of Action

1. Solis shall prepare and secure all necessary documents required to support
his right to resume his job including medical endorsement certified by
competent public health authority stating his capability to work again.
2. Solis shall formally present and submit his legal endorsement to the Human
Resource In-charge for their perusal and processing
3. Since the reinstatement will undergo due process, this means that Solis shall
still patiently wait for a span of time for the approval and effectivity of the
request.
4. If the company will grant approval upon his request, Solis shall report to his
work in accordance to terms and conditions being agreed by both parties.
5. If ever the company will deny his request, Solis shall refer to his legal advisor
for consultation of the necessary actions to be done next, and this time may
 focus more reference on the context of the book that covers the labor law that
directly addresses the issues and concerns of the situation.

REFERENCE:
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/oct1996/gr_116175_1996.html