PLDT vs. Balbastro

PLDT vs.
Balbastro
Amparo Balbastro (private respondent) was employed by petitioner in 1978 as its telephone
operator. On October 5, 1989, she was dismissed by petitioner for her absences without
authorized leave due to unconfirmed sick leave on June 28 to July 14, 1989, which constituted
her third offense punishable by dismissal under petitioner’s rules and regulations.
The private respondent filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter against the petitioner and its
President illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary wage, premium pay for rest day, 13thmonth
pay, and damages. she alleged that she was dismissed on the ground of unconfirmed sick leave
despite her presentation of medical certificates from her attending physicians which were not
considered by petitioner’s medical doctors; and that she has four minor children and it was not
her intention to habitually absent herself without reason considering that her loss of job which
was based only on opinions of petitioner’s doctors had caused her great deprivation and moral
suffering.
For the petitioner, it alleged that the respondent’s habitual and unjustified absences was a just
and valid cause for her termination under its rules and regulations. Going back to her record of
unauthorized absences without notice to the petitioner, or due to gastroenteritis not covered with
medical certificate.
Private respondent’s unconfirmed leave of absence was considered by petitioner unauthorized

due to her patent abuse of sick leave privileges and treated it as her second offense and was
penalized with 15 days suspension.
On her third instance of unauthorized absences, the private respondent claimed that she had sore
eyes. She was visited at the given address in Makati, but she was not found home. When she
returned to work, she had her medical certificate issued by her attending physician showing that
she had been under his professional treatment for systematic viral infection. The company’s
doctors did not confirm her leave of absence on the ground that such illness did not warrant a
very long time of rest; certain laboratory examinations should have been conducted by her
attending physician; and there was patent abuse of her sick leave privileges.
During the deliberation of her third leave of absence, the private respondent absented herself due
to fever. The company’s doctors confirmed the respondent’s leave of absence covered by a
medical certificate and did not confirm those dates which were not covered by a medical
certificate. The petitioner’s doctors confirmed that her illness did not warrant prolonged absence;
and it was medically impossible for her to contract the same illness which she contracted the
previous month since it is a medical fact that there is no such thing as an immediately recurrent
viral infection.
The petitioner terminated the respondent’s service effective October 5, 1989 in view of her
repeated absences without authorized leave for the third time.
Labor Arbiter’s Ruling:
After the hearing conducted by the Labor Arbiter, it issued a Decision ordering PLDT to
reinstate the complainant to her former position as telephone operator and payment of back
wages.
The Labor Arbiter held that private respondent’s first incident of absence from March 19 to 29,
1989 were unauthorized but not as to the other succeeding absences. It found that private
respondent, on her first day of absence, called in sick and when she reported for work:
 she went to petitioner’s clinic for check-up and
 submitted her medical certificates.
Thus she complied with the standard requirements on matters of sick leave; that petitioner’s
doctors did not confirm some portions of private respondent’s leave of absence based merely on
their medical opinions; that such justification was not warranted under Department Order No.
ADM-79-02 wherein absences due to illness were considered unauthorized and without pay
when:
 the attending doctor’s signature is forged
 there is alteration as to the date and contents of the medical certificate
 the certificate is false as to the facts alleged therein
 the doctor issuing the medical certificate is not qualified to attend to the illness
 there are falsities and misrepresentations, and
 when there is patent abuse of sickleave privileges;
These circumstances were not proven in this case.
NLRC:
The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. It found that the company practice
company practice allows leave of absence due to sickness if supported by a medical certificate
issued by the attending physician; that a difference in opinion by the Medical Director from that
of the attending physician should not prejudice private respondent since the Medical Director can
consider absences unauthorized only in cases of forgery and patent abuse of sick leave privileges
which were not proven in this case; that if the Medical Director entertained doubts as to the
medical certificate, he should have asked the attending physician to submit himself for cross
examination and then present an independent physician for an expert opinion on the matter.
CA:
The CA affirmed the NLRC Decision. The CA held that as long as the medical certificate
presented did not fall under any of the infirmities set forth in petitioner’s rules and regulations,
the unconfirmed leave should be treated merely as absence without leave and was not subject to
disciplinary action; that petitioner may not rely on the previous absences of respondents in 1978
and1982 to show abuse of sick leave privileges because petitioner had acknowledged that
respondent had already been penalized with suspension, and those absences were committed
beyond the three-year period mentioned in their rules and regulations; that in its desire to clothe
private respondent’s dismissal with a semblance of legality; petitioner points to private
respondent’s fourth unauthorized leave of absence committed in August 1989 while the third
unauthorized leave of absence was being deliberated upon; and that the notice of dismissal
referred only to her third unauthorized leave, thus she could not be faulted for an infraction for
which she was not charged.
ISSUE:

PLDT vs. Balbastro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLDT vs. Balbastro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLDT vs. Balbastro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLDT vs.

Private respondent’s unconfirmed leave of absence was considered by petitioner unauthorized

These circumstances were not proven in this case.

You might also like