G.R. NO.

153477             March 6, 2007

DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, vs.

LOLITA VELASCO, Respondent.

FACTS:

 Lolita M. Velasco was an employee of Del Monte Philippines

 For being absent on August 15-18, 29-31 and September 1-10, 1994, a notice of hearing
was sent to respondent notifying her of the charges filed against her for violating the
AWOL rule. After hearing, the petitioner terminated the services of respondent due to
excessive absences without permission.
 Feeling aggrieved, respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal against petitioner
asserting that her dismissal was illegal because her absences was due on suffering from
urinary tract infection, a pregnancy-borne, at the time she committed the alleged
absences.
 Petitioner cited Filflex Industrial and Manufacturing Co. v. National Labor Relations
Commission (Filflex) wherein it was held that if the medical certificate fails to refer to
the specific period of the employee’s absence, then such, attributable to chronic
asthmatic bronchitis, are not supported by competent proof and, hence, they are
unjustified.

ISSUE: WON the dismissal is illegal

HELD: Yes

Absences due to pregnancy and related illness justified

It did not constitute gross and habitual neglect. Her being pregnant at the time these absences
were incurred is not questioned and is even admitted by respondent. Medical and health
reports abundantly disclose that during the first trimester of pregnancy, expectant mothers are
plagued with morning sickness, frequent urination, vomiting and fatigue all of which
complainant was similarly plagued with. It must be emphasized that under company rules,
absences may be subsequently justified. Here, she was able to subsequently justify her absences
in accordance with company rules and policy.

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the condition of asthmatic bronchitis may be
intermittent, in contrast to pregnancy which is a continuing condition accompanied by
various symptoms and related illnesses. Hence, as to the former, if the medical certificate or
other proof proffered by the worker fails to correspond with the dates of absence, then it can be
reasonably concluded that, absent any other proof, such absences are unjustified. This is the
ruling in Filflex which cannot be applied in a straight-hand fashion in cases of pregnancy
which is a long-term condition accompanied by an assortment of related illnesses.

Termination violative of Art 137

Since the sickness was pregnancy related-,Del Monte cannot terminate her services because in
doing so, it will be violating Art 137 of the Labor Code which prohibits an employer to
discharge an employee on account of the latter’s pregnancy.

Art. 137. Prohibited acts. – It shall be unlawful for any employer: xxx

(2) To discharge such woman on account of her pregnancy, while on leave or in confinement
due to her pregnancy; xxx

-End of Digest-

Supporting info below.

Other Ruling

Totality of the infractions rule to justify dismissal not applicable

Petitioner puts much emphasis on respondent’s "long history" of unauthorized absences

committed several years beforehand. The undeniable fact is that during her complained
absences, she was pregnant and suffered related illnesses. Again, it must be stressed that
respondent’s discharge by reason of absences caused by her pregnancy is covered by the
prohibition under the Labor Code. Since her last string of absences is justifiable and had been
subsequently explained, the petitioner had no legal basis in considering these absences together
with her prior infractions as gross and habitual neglect.

Velasco Argument:

She explained that for her absence from work on August 15, 16, 17 & 18, 1994 she had sent an
application for leave to her supervisor. Thereafter, she went to the company hospital for check-
up and was advised accordingly to rest in quarters for four (4) days or on August 27 to 30, 1994.
Still not feeling well, she failed to work on September 1, 1994 and was again advised two days
of rest in quarters on September 2-3, 1994. Unable to recover, she went to see an outside doctor
and the latter ordered her to rest for another five (5) consecutive days, or from September 5 to 9,
1994. She declared she did not file the adequate leave of absence because a medical certificate
was already sufficient per company policy. On September 10, 1994 she failed to report to work
but sent an application for leave of absence to her supervisor, Prima Ybañez, which was not
anymore accepted. Petitioner posits that the evidence proffered by respondent establish
respondent’s sickness only from August 23, 1994 up to August 30, 1994 and from September 4,
1994 up to September 8, 1994. In other words, respondent was absent without permission on
several other days which were not supported by any other proof of illness, specifically, on
August 15, 16, 17, 18, 31, 1994 and September 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10, 1994, and, hence, she is guilty of
ten unjustified absences.