The Supreme Court ruled in this case that an employer did not illegally dismiss an employee when they asked him to extend his leave due to concerns about his health. The Court emphasized that the employer’s actions were justified by the employee’s apparent physical limitations and the strenuous nature of his job, as the employer was awaiting the decision of higher management regarding a transfer of assignment that the employee himself requested. This decision clarifies the extent to which employers can consider an employee’s health when making work assignments without being accused of illegal dismissal.

When Ailing Health Raises Questions: Was Master Fisherman Suan Unfairly Dismissed?

Jose Suan, a master fisherman for Irma Fishing and Trading, Inc., suffered a stroke and took sick leave. Upon his return, he presented a medical certificate stating he was fit to work, but his employer, noticing his apparent paralysis, suggested he extend his leave while they considered reassigning him to a less strenuous role. Feeling dismissed, Suan filed a case for illegal dismissal, claiming he was ready to work and never requested a transfer. The central legal question is whether the employer’s actions constituted illegal dismissal, or if they were reasonable accommodations based on Suan’s health and the demands of his job.

The Labor Arbiter initially ruled that Suan was not dismissed, offering reinstatement without backwages or separation pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision, and the Court of Appeals upheld the NLRC’s ruling. The Supreme Court, in reviewing the case, emphasized that its jurisdiction is generally limited to questions of law, not fact, unless the factual findings are unsupported by evidence or constitute a grave abuse of discretion. The Court found no such abuse in this case, adopting the Labor Arbiter’s conclusion that Suan was not dismissed.

The Court highlighted the absence of a termination notice issued by the employer, even after Suan exceeded his initial sick leave. The medical certificate presented by Suan, while stating he could resume working, also indicated that he had Hypertension and Ischemic Heart Disease. The Labor Arbiter noted that heart disease is incurable and could worsen under strenuous conditions, and the court could take judicial notice that a stroke often leads to prolonged recovery periods. The Supreme Court also noted that:

“Besides, the work of a master fisherman is a strenuous one where brute physical strength is needed and involved. And definitely, complainant has not completely regained his lost physical strength.”

Given the physical demands of Suan’s job and his apparent health issues, the Court found credible the employer’s claim that Suan requested a transfer to a less strenuous role. The Court emphasized that the employer’s suggestion of extended leave was to allow time for management to consider this request. It was important to the Supreme Court that:

“Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion (Section 5, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Evidence.)”

Substantial evidence supported the Labor Arbiter’s reliance not only on the employer’s evidence but also on the medical certificate issued by the doctor. There was no denying the severe hypertension that the fisherman had experienced in late November 1996 that prompted the fisherman to disembark from the vessel and seek medical treatment. In addition, the employer’s concern was valid that due to the fisherman’s health, specifically ischemic heart disease, being assigned to a vessel could cause the hypertension to recur without immediate medical treatment, leading to a potentially fatal situation. In the end, based on the circumstances of the fisherman, there was no clear cut policy for the private respondent corporation to transfer an employee to a different position.

The Court distinguished this case from Ranara vs. NLRC, where an employee was clearly dismissed before any offer of re-employment was made. In Suan’s case, the employer’s letter requesting an explanation for his absence after the extended leave indicated that they were awaiting his return. This was a key factor that supported the decision of the court. The Court of Appeals stated that private respondents had presented substantial evidence to show that the petitioner had indeed asked for a transfer of work assignment. This showed that the court favored the conclusion that the petitioner had asked for a reassignment.

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding no illegal dismissal. The Court emphasized that the employer’s actions were reasonable considering Suan’s health and the nature of his job. The court also gave a reminder to employers regarding Article 294 of the Labor Code, stating:

“An employer may terminate the services of an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees provided that he is paid separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.”

This case serves as a reminder to employers to act reasonably and in good faith when dealing with employees who have health issues. Employers must carefully consider the employee’s medical condition, the demands of the job, and any potential accommodations that can be made. Employees, on the other hand, must be forthright about their health and be willing to cooperate with their employers in finding suitable work arrangements. This ruling underscores the importance of balancing the rights of employees with the legitimate concerns of employers regarding workplace safety and productivity.

FAQs

What was the main issue in the Jose Suan case?	The main issue was whether Jose Suan was illegally dismissed by his employer, Irma Fishing and Trading, Inc., after he returned from sick leave following a stroke. He claimed he was ready to work, but the employer questioned his fitness given his apparent health condition.
What was the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling that Jose Suan was not illegally dismissed. The Court found that the employer’s actions were reasonable given Suan’s health and the strenuous nature of his job as a master fisherman.
What did the medical certificate presented by Suan state?	The medical certificate stated that Suan had Hypertension and Ischemic Heart Disease but that his hypertension had been downgraded to mild and he could resume working with medication. However, it did not specifically state that he was fit to resume working as a master fisherman.
Did Suan request a transfer to a different position?	The employer claimed that Suan requested a transfer from the strenuous work at “laot” (sea) to a less demanding position at “tabi” (shore). The Court found this claim credible, supported by the employer’s evidence and Suan’s health condition.
How did the Court distinguish this case from Ranara vs. NLRC?	In Ranara, the employee was clearly dismissed before any offer of re-employment was made, while in Suan’s case, the employer’s actions indicated they were awaiting his return after his extended leave. This distinction was a key factor in the Court’s decision.
What is the significance of Article 294 of the Labor Code?	Article 294 of the Labor Code allows an employer to terminate an employee’s services if they suffer from a disease that makes their continued employment prohibited by law or prejudicial to their health or the health of their co-employees. In these cases, the employee is entitled to separation pay.
What is the definition of substantial evidence?	Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion (Section 5, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Evidence.)
What was the basis for the employer to send a letter to the employee?	The basis for the employer to send a letter to the employee was because the employee was declared Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL) for not reporting to work after the extension of his sick leave had ended.

This case highlights the complex interplay between an employee’s right to security of tenure and an employer’s responsibility to ensure a safe and productive workplace. Employers must be prepared to justify their decisions with substantial evidence and demonstrate that they acted reasonably and in good faith. This ruling emphasizes the need for clear communication, careful consideration of medical evidence, and a willingness to explore reasonable accommodations for employees with health concerns.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Jose Suan vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 141441, June 19, 2001