G.R. No. L-58639 August 12, 1987
Cebu Royal Plant (San Miguel Corporation), petitioner, vs. The Honorable Deputy Minister of Labor and Ramon Pilones, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cebu Royal Plant dismissed private respondent Ramon Pilones, a “syrup man,” on August 21, 1978, on the ground of “pulmonary tuberculosis minimal.” Pilones filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Regional Director dismissed the complaint, finding the termination justified as Pilones was a probationary employee whose medical results disqualified him. The Deputy Minister of Labor reversed this, holding Pilones was already a permanent employee entitled to security of tenure and that the dismissal lacked the required certification from a competent public health authority.
Petitioner argues Pilones was still a probationary employee at the time of dismissal, having been hired on February 16, 1978, for a six-month probation. It contends the dismissal was necessary for public health and complied with company policy. It further asserts the Regional Director’s findings should not have been disturbed.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of Ramon Pilones was illegal.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed the Deputy Minister’s ruling, with modification. The legal logic rests on Pilones’s attainment of permanent status. Petitioner’s own Temporary Payroll Authority indicated employment began on February 16, 1978, starting a six-month probation ending August 17, 1978. Pilones was dismissed on August 21, 1978. Under Article 282 of the Labor Code, an employee allowed to work after a probationary period is considered regular. Thus, Pilones was a permanent employee when dismissed, entitled to constitutional security of tenure.
The alleged ground for dismissal, pulmonary tuberculosis, did not comply with the mandatory requirement under the implementing rules. Section 8, Rule I, Book VI required a certification from a competent public health authority that the disease was incurable within six months even with treatment. Petitioner only submitted a certificate from its company physician, which was insufficient. The absence of the required certification rendered the dismissal unlawful.
Furthermore, the Court noted petitioner’s application for termination clearance was filed seven days after the dismissal, violating the prior clearance rule then in force. The timing of the medical examination—on the last day of probation—and evidence suggesting possible earlier employment in 1977 indicated an attempt to circumvent security of tenure laws. However, considering public health, reinstatement was ordered contingent upon a certification of fitness from a competent public health authority, with backwages limited to three years. The petition was dismissed.