The Supreme Court held that an employer was justified in terminating an employee due to a pattern of unconfirmed sick leaves, constituting an abuse of sick leave privileges. The Court emphasized that while labor laws protect employees, they do not compel employers to retain those who are a liability. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to company policies regarding sick leaves and the potential consequences of abusing these privileges.

When ‘Sore Eyes’ Don’t See Eye-to-Eye: PLDT’s Stand Against Sick Leave Abuse

Amparo Balbastro, a telephone operator at PLDT, faced dismissal after repeated absences. PLDT cited her unconfirmed sick leaves as a violation of company policy, marking her third offense. Balbastro contested, arguing her doctor-issued medical certificates should suffice. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC initially sided with Balbastro, but the Court of Appeals affirmed. The central legal question revolves around whether PLDT properly terminated Balbastro due to the alleged abuse of sick leave privileges.

The core of the legal battle hinged on Department Order No. ADM-79-02, which outlined the conditions under which absences due to illness could be deemed unauthorized. According to this order, absences could be considered unauthorized if the medical certificate was forged, altered, false, issued by an unqualified doctor, or indicative of a **patent abuse of sick leave privileges**. PLDT argued that Balbastro’s actions fell under the last category.

PLDT presented evidence detailing Balbastro’s series of absences. The most critical incident occurred when she claimed sore eyes but later presented a medical certificate for a systemic viral disease, a discrepancy that raised red flags. Moreover, the company doctors questioned the duration of her absence for the stated illness and the lack of supporting laboratory tests. These inconsistencies, combined with her prior unauthorized absences, formed the basis of PLDT’s decision to terminate her employment.

The Court underscored that while the burden of proof rests on the employer to justify a dismissal, PLDT successfully demonstrated a valid cause. The Court noted discrepancies in Balbastro’s medical records. The medical certificate and progress notes from Balbastro’s doctor did not align, further undermining her claims. The justices emphasized the pattern of behavior exhibited by the employee when it came to sick leaves.

The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of **substantial evidence** in termination cases, requiring that employers demonstrate their decisions were based on credible information and established facts. It found the lower courts erred in disregarding PLDT’s evidence and in concluding that Balbastro had not abused her sick leave privileges. The Court ruled that PLDT had sufficiently established that Balbastro’s repeated and unconfirmed absences constituted a patent abuse of sick leave privileges.

This decision reflects the Court’s recognition of an employer’s right to maintain order and productivity within the workplace. While labor laws aim to protect employees, they are not intended to shield those who demonstrably abuse company policies and procedures. By prioritizing fairness, the Court recognized that employers should not endure undue hardship. Employees have to use company’s privileges in good faith to keep their positions secure.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	Whether PLDT validly dismissed Amparo Balbastro for abusing her sick leave privileges based on unconfirmed absences and discrepancies in her medical certificates.
What is considered a “patent abuse” of sick leave?	A “patent abuse” involves frequent and unjustified absences coupled with questionable medical documentation or inconsistencies in claimed illnesses, leading to a pattern of untrustworthiness.
What did PLDT’s company policy say about unconfirmed sick leave?	Under PLDT’s policy, unconfirmed sick leave could be treated as absence without leave (AWOL), leading to disciplinary actions like suspension or, for repeated offenses, dismissal.
What discrepancies did the Court find in Balbastro’s case?	The Court found discrepancies between Balbastro’s initial claim of “sore eyes,” the diagnosis in her medical certificate (systemic viral disease), and her doctor’s progress notes, raising doubts about the legitimacy of her absences.
Why did PLDT’s doctors not confirm Balbastro’s sick leave?	PLDT’s doctors cited the implausibility of the prolonged rest for a systemic viral disease, lack of supporting lab tests, and inconsistencies in her medical history as reasons for not confirming her leave.
What evidence did PLDT present to support its claim of abuse?	PLDT presented Balbastro’s attendance records, medical certificates, testimony from company doctors, and the relevant company policies regarding sick leave and disciplinary actions.
What was the significance of Balbastro’s prior unauthorized absences?	Balbastro’s prior unauthorized absences, for which she had been suspended, were considered as a history of violations, which, combined with the current offense, warranted dismissal.
Can previous infractions justify dismissal for a similar offense?	Yes, previous infractions can be used as justification for an employee’s dismissal if they are related to a subsequent similar offense, especially when company rules specify penalties for repeated violations.
What is the role of medical certificates in sick leave?	While medical certificates support sick leave claims, they must be consistent, credible, and align with company policies to be fully accepted; employers can question certificates with valid medical or procedural grounds.

This case provides important guidance on the application of sick leave policies and the employer’s right to maintain a productive workforce. It highlights that while labor laws protect employees, abuse of privileges can result in valid termination. A balance must be maintained to ensure fairness for both employee and employer.

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: Philippine Long Distance and Telephone Company, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 157202, March 28, 2007