G.R. No. 217169, November 04, 2020
Omanfil International Manpower Development Corporation & Mohd Al-Zoabi Technical Projects Corp., Petitioners, v. Rolando B. Mesina, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Omanfil deployed respondent Rolando B. Mesina to work as an Expediter in Saudi Arabia for petitioner Mohd Al-Zoabi Technical Projects Corporation (MAZTPC) under a 24-month contract. After nine months of work, Mesina experienced severe chest pains and was hospitalized twice in February 2006. His doctor advised an Angiogram Test at a better-equipped facility. Petitioners claimed Mesina voluntarily opted for repatriation to the Philippines for treatment and was provided a re-entry visa. Mesina, however, contended that MAZTPC requested his immediate repatriation against his will due to his medical condition, and he was sent back on February 22, 2006.
Upon his return, Mesina sought reimbursement for medical expenses from petitioners, submitting a quotation from the Philippine Heart Center. Petitioners refused, arguing that the employment contract only provided free medical treatment during employment and that his heart ailment was not work-related. Mesina subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, medical reimbursement, and damages. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC dismissed the illegal dismissal claim but awarded separation pay, finding the repatriation justified under the contract for a prolonged or permanent illness. The Court of Appeals reversed, declaring the dismissal illegal.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that respondent Rolando B. Mesina was illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that Mesina was illegally dismissed. The legal logic centers on the failure of the employers to establish a valid authorized cause for termination under Article 299(b) of the Labor Code (now Article 298) and its implementing rules, which permit termination due to disease only if the illness is incurable within six months even with proper treatment and the employee’s continued work is prejudicial.
First, the petitioners failed to prove that Mesina’s heart disease was prolonged, permanent, or incurable within six months as required by law. The employment contract provision allowing repatriation for a “prolonged” or “permanent” illness must be interpreted in harmony with this statutory requirement. The mere occurrence of an illness does not automatically justify dismissal; the employer must present a certification from a competent public health authority attesting to the disease’s nature and prognosis. Petitioners presented no such certification.
Second, the claim of voluntary repatriation was unsubstantiated. Mesina’s immediate filing of an illegal dismissal case negates the assertion that he agreed to his repatriation. The alleged provision of a re-entry visa does not defeat the complaint, as the act of repatriation itself constituted a termination of employment. Since petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving a lawful cause for dismissal, the termination was deemed illegal. Consequently, Mesina is entitled to his money claims as awarded by the appellate court.