Wueth Phils Inc. vs Rodante Ynson

Facts:

Wuerth PH hired Rodanty Ynson in 2001 as a National Sales Manager for the Automotive business. His work required him to travel throughout the country as well as supervise sales managers. In January 2003, he suffered a stroke and was confined in Davao Doctor’s Hospital. Medical certification was provided by his doctors to the company. He underwent therapy and rehabilitation for six months until June 2003 and was advised not to travel – a fact which he communicated to Wuerth. Nevertheless, he was called to the Manila for an investigation on several occasions, the last being August 2003, for unexplained absences since January 2003 and abandonment of work. He was later terminated.He filed a complaint for Illegal dismissal. The company avers that he was not terminated because of his disease, but due to gross dereliction of duties.

CA: Ruled that .Rodante did not comply with medical certificate requirement which is to be offset with his right under law to take a 6 month leave of absence to recover from illness. According to Section 8, Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code requires that: Disease as a ground for dismissal. — Where the employee suffers from a disease and his continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-employees, the employer shall not terminate his employment unless there is a certification by a competent public health authority that the disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six (6) months even with proper medical treatment. If the disease or ailment can be cured within the period, the employer shall not terminate the employee but shall ask the employee to take a leave. The employer shall reinstate such employee to his former position immediately upon the restoration of his normal health.

Issue:

 Whether he was illegally dismissed.

Held:

No. He failed to provide competent evidence that he was unable to return to work due to medical conditions. Ynson’s conduct shows his indifference and utter disregard of his work and his employer's interest, and displays his clear, deliberate, and gross dereliction of duties. He was already cleared to return to work by June 2003, although he was advised to continue with his rehab regimen for at least 1 ½ more months, and not to travel. 2. He failed to attend the investigation even as late as August 2003 when he already completed the regimen prescribed by the doctor.