G.R. No. L-73349 May 29, 1987
PHILSA CONSTRUCTION AND TRADING CO., and ARIEB ENTERPRISES, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and FERNANDO HIPOLITO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Philsa Construction and Trading Co. and Arieb Enterprises deployed private respondent Fernando Hipolito to Saudi Arabia as a bridge foreman under a one-year contract. In November 1982, Philsa had initially refused to deploy Hipolito due to a medical report noting basal cell carcinoma (a skin cancer) on his lip, recognizing that such a condition could be aggravated by sun exposure. Hipolito underwent surgery for this condition in January 1983. He reapplied in February 1983, was examined by Philsa’s own clinic, certified “fit for duty” on March 12, 1983, and was deployed on March 16, 1983. In Saudi Arabia, a medical examination on May 18, 1983, noted pre-malignant skin lesions. The examining doctor advised avoidance of sun exposure and use of sunscreen but did not recommend cessation of work. Nevertheless, petitioner Arieb Enterprises terminated Hipolito’s employment effective June 15, 1983, and he was repatriated.
Hipolito filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) ruled in his favor, ordering petitioners to pay the monetary equivalent of the unexpired portion of his contract. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the POEA decision.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the finding of illegal dismissal, notwithstanding petitioners’ claim that termination was justified under Article 285 of the Labor Code due to Hipolito’s disease.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC resolutions, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is clear: petitioners cannot validly invoke Article 285 of the Labor Code, which allows termination due to a disease prejudicial to the employee’s health, because they deployed Hipolito with full prior knowledge of his medical condition. His skin ailment was not concealed; it was known to petitioners from his initial 1982 application. After his surgery, their own clinic medically cleared him as “fit for duty” before deployment. Having assumed the risk by executing the employment contract after this clearance, petitioners are estopped from later using the very same health condition—which they had accepted—as a ground for termination.
Furthermore, the Court found the essential requirements of Article 285 were not met. The medical advice from Saudi Arabia merely recommended simple precautions (sun avoidance, sunscreen), not repatriation. The disease was not shown to be so prejudicial as to necessitate termination before his contract expired. The employer’s duty, upon discovering a condition manageable with precautions, was to seek suitable alternative employment, not to effect summary dismissal. Thus, the termination was illegal, and petitioners are liable for the contract’s unexpired portion.