G.R. Nos. 141702-03, August 2, 2001
Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Martha Z. Singson

FACTS

Petitioner Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. (CATHAY) is an international airline. Respondent Martha Z. Singson was hired as a cabin attendant on September 24, 1990, with her home base in Hongkong. On August 26, 1991, she missed a scheduled flight due to fatigue. On August 29, 1991, she was examined by company doctor Dr. Emer Fahy, who diagnosed a moderately severe asthma attack and declared her unfit to fly. On September 3, 1991, after a follow-up visit where Dr. Fahy noted improvement, Cabin Crew Manager Robert J. Nipperess informed Singson that CATHAY had decided to retire her on medical grounds effective immediately, based on the recommendation of Dr. Fahy and Principal Medical Officer Dr. John G. Fowler. Singson acknowledged the notification and later inquired about ground duty employment. On December 20, 1991, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
At trial, CATHAY presented Nipperess and Dr. Fowler, who testified that asthma rendered Singson unfit to fly and posed aviation risks. Singson denied having asthma and presented Dr. Benjamin Lazo, who found her to be in normal condition. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Singson, declaring illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement with back wages and damages. The NLRC reversed this decision, declaring the dismissal valid based on Dr. Fowler’s testimony and Dr. Fahy’s affidavit/medical records admitted as newly-discovered evidence, but ordered CATHAY to retain Singson as a ground stewardess (a position she had been reinstated to on March 12, 1993). Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied. Their subsequent petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Supreme Court were consolidated and referred to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, declaring Singson illegally terminated. It found: (1) Dr. Fowler’s opinion was based on Dr. Fahy’s examination, not his own, and thus unreliable; (2) CATHAY failed to secure a certification from a competent public health authority as required by the Omnibus Rules; (3) the NLRC erroneously relied on Dr. Fahy’s affidavit as she was not presented as a witness; (4) Singson had passed the required medical examination prior to employment; and (5) CATHAY failed to adequately prove the health standards disqualifying asthmatic flight attendants. It awarded full back wages with reinstatement and moral and exemplary damages, but deleted actual damages. It nullified the option for Singson to continue as a ground stewardess.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) examining the factual findings of the NLRC in a Rule 65 petition; and (2) not admitting as evidence the affidavit of Dr. Fahy.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision.
On the first issue, the Court held it was inevitable for the Court of Appeals to examine the evidence anew. CATHAY’s petition assailed the NLRC’s order granting Singson the option to continue as a ground stewardess, while Singson’s petition attacked the NLRC’s finding of valid dismissal. This necessitated an examination of whether the NLRC’s factual findings were supported by evidence, especially given the conflicting decisions between the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Thus, the appellate court committed no error in evaluating the evidence.
On the second issue, the Court agreed that the Court of Appeals erred in not admitting Dr. Fahy’s affidavit. In labor cases, the rules of evidence are not strictly controlling, and procedural deficiencies are viewed liberally. The NLRC Rules allow parties to submit position papers with supporting documents, including affidavits, which take the place of witness testimonies. Therefore, the affidavit was admissible. However, this finding did not alter the outcome, as the Court sustained the appellate court’s ruling on other grounds, particularly CATHAY’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of Sec. 8, Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. This rule requires a certification from a competent public health authority when disease is the ground for dismissal. CATHAY relied solely on the diagnosis of its company doctors and did not present the required certification. This failure rendered Singson’s dismissal illegal. The Court of Appeals decision was affirmed, ordering Singson’s reinstatement with full back wages and awarding moral and exemplary damages.