Possible termination:Refusal of Medical Certificate

On our company, we consider Monday and Friday critical working days. If an employee is absent on these days, he is required to submit a med cert dated on the date of absence or the day after absence.

I was out last friday due to fever. I notified them that i was going to be out. I was bedridden the entire weekend. My temp was going up and down with severe backpain that kept me from moving.

I was able to go to the doctor a while ago, Monday. At that time i am still ailing. The doctor told me to have another day of rest.

I sent my boss a text message informing that i couldnt make it again today because i am still sick. I told her as well that i already have a medical certificate.

They told me that they will refuse my medical certificate and give me a sanction. They have referred me to HR for verdict. The reason why they are refusing my excuse and my medcert is because they think it beats the purpose of having a med check up. They think that the only reason i went to the doctor is for med cert thats it.

I explained my situation and i told them that i fully believe that my med check up did not beat its purpose because I AM STILL SICK RIGHT NOW.

But the management is decided to run my case. I am into possible termination.

Please let me know if in case i make a complaint against their action. Do i have a fight on it? Thank you.

Wait for due process to run through.

1. Notice to Explain
2. Explanation
3. Hearing
4. Decision


If any of these are not present, then any dismissal may be illegal.

Hi COuncil,

Just have a follow up question re this topic.

Is it also a factor to terminate an employee if he has an attendance issue though he was submitting medcert but with different diagnosis almost twice a month? Or medcert should still be considerted?

Are you sick every month?

lol it's not me.

This is just a question related to the topic above.

Sorry my mistake

any answer to my question?

The present case involves termination due to disease – an authorized cause for dismissal under Article 284 of the Labor Code. As substantive requirements, the Labor Code and its IRR require the presence of the following elements:

(1) An employee has been found to be suffering from any disease.

(2) His continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health, as well as to the health of his co-employees.

(3) A competent public health authority certifies that the disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six months even with proper medical treatment. With respect to the first and second elements, the Court liberally construed the phrase "prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees" to mean "prejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-employees." We did not limit the scope of this phrase to contagious diseases for the reason that this phrase is preceded by the phrase "any disease" under Article 284 of the Labor Code, to wit:

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 co-employees: 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.

Yan, pre.

rda wrote:

Just have a follow up question re this topic.

Is it also a factor to terminate an employee if he has an attendance issue though he was submitting medcert but with different diagnosis almost twice a month? Or medcert should still be considered?

To RDA: If an employer terminates an employee when he is submitting med certs, he runs the risk of being sued. Employers should consider the med certs. If they question the med certs, they have to conduct investigation about it and decide on it.

Ernani wrote:The present case involves termination due to disease – an authorized cause for dismissal under Article 284 of the Labor Code. As substantive requirements, the Labor Code and its IRR require the presence of the following elements:

(1) An employee has been found to be suffering from any disease.

(2) His continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his health, as well as to the health of his co-employees.

(3) A competent public health authority certifies that the disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six months even with proper medical treatment. With respect to the first and second elements, the Court liberally construed the phrase "prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees" to mean "prejudicial to his health or to the health of his co-employees." We did not limit the scope of this phrase to contagious diseases for the reason that this phrase is preceded by the phrase "any disease" under Article 284 of the Labor Code, to wit:

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 co-employees: 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.

Yan, pre.

Hi Sir/s - Does this law applies to the scenario where in an employee has TB which we know that it's curable in minimum of 6 months.

yes