Disease as Ground for Termination; Procedure for Fixed-Term and ProjectAtty Elvin
Disease is one of the grounds for termination of employee. When such disease is prejudicial to the health of the employee or his co-employees it can be an authorized cause to end employment relationship.
What is the procedure to terminate employee due to disease?
The post below is based on the book Guide to Valid Dismissal of Employees Second Edition (page 57).
For termination on the ground of disease, Article 284 provides that:
“Art. 284. Disease as ground for termination.—An employer may terminate the services of an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his coemployees: Provided, That he is paid separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.”
Termination due to disease under Article 284 does not categorically show the procedural due process necessary to effect the dismissal. In Agabon vs. NLRC, the Supreme Court observed, however, that the procedural requirements under Article 283 are likewise applicable to Article 284.
Procedural Due Process for Termination of Project Employment
It bears stressing as well that for dismissal on the ground of disease the employer has to take note of other requisites for validity like the certification coming from competent public health authority regarding the illness, among others.
Termination of project employment does not require notice. The relationship ends upon the completion of the project or phase thereof.
Procedure for Termination of Fixed-Term Employment
Fixed-term or fixed-period employment is duly recognized by jurisprudence as well. When this is validly done, termination is effected upon the expiration of the period stipulated by the parties. The validity of termination can exist independently of the procedural infirmity of the dismissal.
Take note that this is in accord with the pronouncement that dismissal does not involve worker’s property in constitutional sense. Not being so, absence of procedural requirements does not negate the validity of dismissal.
The employer however, is liable for indemnity. In other instances of severance of employer-employee relationship, the law provides certain procedural requirements.