Solis v. NLRC

G.R. No. 116175 (October 28, 1996)

Facts:

Pedro V. Solis was employed as an underground miner by Philex Mining Corporation since August 1972. In 1983, he was diagnosed with a "Kochas infection, exudative type, minimal (R)" due to his constant exposure to harsh conditions in the mining environment. Medical professionals recommended that he be reassigned to surface work to aid in his recovery. Despite these recommendations and the intervention of his union in October 1990, Philex did not comply, leading to a deterioration of Solis's health.

On March 21, 1991, after a medical examination at the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center, Solis was diagnosed with Kochas pulmonary bronchiectasis (commonly known as tuberculosis), bronchial asthma, and arthralgia of the right shoulder. He was declared unfit to continue working underground. Subsequently, on April 5, 1991, Philex dismissed Solis from service, providing him with a separation pay of P55,121.85.

After his dismissal, Solis sought a second medical opinion from the Baguio Filipino Chinese Hospital, which issued a medical certificate declaring him physically fit. Armed with this new certificate, he approached Philex for reinstatement but was denied. Consequently, on May 6, 1991, Solis filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Philex.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Solis, declaring his dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement with back wages. Philex appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which upheld the Labor Arbiter's finding of illegal dismissal but denied reinstatement, citing Solis's acceptance of separation pay as a voluntary act.

Solis then filed a petition for certiorari, alleging that the NLRC had committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the Labor Arbiter's reinstatement order.

Legal Issues:

1. Was Solis dismissed for a valid cause under the Labor Code?
2. Was Solis estopped from claiming reinstatement due to his acceptance of separation pay?
3. What are the implications of the medical findings regarding Solis's fitness for work?

Arguments:

• Petitioner (Solis):

  • Solis argued that his dismissal was illegal as he was not given a valid cause for termination. He contended that the medical certificate from the Baguio Filipino Chinese Hospital indicated he was fit to work, and thus, he should be reinstated.
  • He also claimed that accepting the separation pay was due to financial necessity and did not constitute a waiver of his right to reinstatement.

• Respondent (Philex):

  • Philex maintained that Solis's dismissal was justified under Article 284 of the Labor Code, which allows termination for employees suffering from diseases that pose a danger to themselves or others. They argued that Solis's tuberculosis was contagious and posed a risk to his co-workers.
  • Philex further contended that Solis's acceptance of separation pay constituted estoppel, preventing him from claiming reinstatement.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Solis, reinstating the Labor Arbiter's decision. The Court found that Philex failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the dismissal under Article 284 of the Labor Code. Specifically, the medical certificate did not indicate that Solis's condition could not be cured within six months, which is a requirement for lawful termination due to illness.

The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the employer to demonstrate that the dismissal was for a valid cause. Philex's argument regarding the contagious nature of Solis's disease was not supported by the necessary medical certification.

Regarding the issue of estoppel, the Court ruled that acceptance of separation pay does not automatically bar an employee from seeking reinstatement, especially when the acceptance was made under financial duress. The Court noted that Solis's actions indicated he did not waive his right to reinstatement, as he filed for illegal dismissal shortly after his separation.

The Court also clarified that while Solis was entitled to reinstatement, it must be contingent upon his physical fitness to work underground, which would require certification from a competent public health authority.

Finally, the Court addressed the issue of back wages and separation pay, stating that these are distinct and separate forms of relief. If reinstatement is not possible, Philex would owe Solis back wages and separation pay, with the amount already received deducted from the separation pay rather than the back wages.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. The burden of proof lies with the employer to justify the dismissal of an employee on the grounds of illness.
2. Acceptance of separation pay does not constitute a waiver of the right to contest the legality of dismissal.
3. Reinstatement is contingent upon the employee's fitness to work, which must be certified by a competent authority.
4. Back wages and separation pay are distinct forms of relief and should be treated separately in terms of computation.