PLDT vs. Balbastro

An employee's dismissal is valid when based on a patent abuse of sick leave privileges under company rules, even if the medical certificates presented are not forged, altered, or falsified, provided that the surrounding circumstances—such as excessive and recurring absences, discrepancies between the reported illness and the medical certificate, inconsistencies within the medical records, and failure to undergo standard medical verification—demonstrate a pattern of abuse detrimental to the employer.

Amparo Balbastro was employed by Philippine Long Distance and Telephone Company, Inc. (PLDT) as a telephone operator in 1978. She was dismissed on October 5, 1989, for incurring three offenses of unauthorized absences within a three-year period under PLDT's "Traffic Operators Guidelines for Disciplinary Actions." The guideline provides that unconfirmed sick leave may be treated as absence without leave (AWOL), and a third offense of AWOL within a three-year period is punishable by dismissal. Balbastro's third offense stemmed from her unconfirmed absences from June 28 to July 14, 1989, which PLDT considered a patent abuse of sick leave privileges after its company doctors refused to confirm portions of her sick leave.

• Employment and Dismissal: Amparo Balbastro was hired as a telephone operator in 1978. She was dismissed on October 5, 1989, for incurring three offenses of unconfirmed sick leave treated as AWOL within a three-year period, punishable by dismissal under PLDT's guidelines.
• First Offense (March 19–29, 1989): Balbastro absented herself for nine days without notice, citing marital problems. The absence was treated as unauthorized and penalized with an 18-day suspension.
• Second Offense (June 5–13, 1989): Balbastro called in sick for gastroenteritis. Her medical certificate only covered June 5 to 8, but she remained absent until June 13. PLDT's doctor confirmed leave only up to June 10; the unconfirmed days were treated as a second offense and penalized with a 15-day suspension.
• Third Offense (June 28–July 14, 1989): Balbastro called in sick on June 25, citing "sore eyes." She remained absent until July 14. When outvisited at her Makati address on July 3, she was not found (she was in Tanauan, Batangas). Upon reporting on July 15, she presented a medical certificate from Dr. Manuel Damian certifying treatment for "systemic viral disease" from June 25 to July 12. PLDT's Dr. Benito Dungo confirmed only June 25 to 27, refusing to confirm the rest due to the illness not warranting prolonged rest, lack of laboratory examinations, failure to use PLDT's free hospitalization, absence of residual symptoms, the discrepancy between the "sore eyes" call and the certificate, and a medical record showing a pattern of abuse. This unconfirmed leave was treated as a third offense, resulting in dismissal.
• Discrepancies in Medical Records: Dr. Damian's medical progress note, dated October 10, 1989, showed he only saw Balbastro on June 25, 27, and 29, contradicting his medical certificate stating professional care from June 25 to July 12. Furthermore, the certificate did not cover July 13 and 14. When cross-examined on why "sore eyes" was not in the certificate, Balbastro stated, "the diagnosis was systemic viral disease, sama-sama na lahat."
• Pattern of Absences: Balbastro incurred 85 days of absence from January to October 1989, and 115 days in 1988. Her medical records showed she rarely consulted PLDT's clinic, only presenting medical certificates for clearance, and that she had received several warnings regarding unconfirmed sick leaves.

• Patent Abuse of Sick Leave Privileges: Petitioner argued that the NLRC and CA erred in limiting the grounds for patent abuse to forgery or falsification of medical certificates. Patent abuse is a separately enumerated ground under Department Order No. ADM-79-02, and Balbastro's frequent, incorrigible absences supported by certificates with implausible diagnoses and uncovered periods constituted such abuse.
• Hearsay and Lack of Probative Value of Medical Certificates: Petitioner maintained that the medical certificates presented by Balbastro were pure hearsay and had no probative value because her attending physician was never presented for cross-examination. In contrast, PLDT presented three company doctors who testified and were cross-examined, successfully rebutting the contents of the certificates.

• Validity of Medical Certificates: Respondent countered that as long as the medical certificates did not fall under the infirmities enumerated in PLDT's rules (forged, altered, false, issued by an unqualified doctor, or patent abuse), the unconfirmed leave should be treated merely as absence without leave and not subject to disciplinary action.
• No Patent Abuse: Respondent argued that previous absences in 1978 and 1982 could not be used to show abuse because they had already been penalized and fell outside the three-year period. Furthermore, the notice of dismissal referred only to the third unauthorized leave, so the subsequent August 1989 absence could not be held against her.

• Patent Abuse of Sick Leave Privileges: Whether the employee committed a patent abuse of sick leave privileges warranting dismissal under company rules, notwithstanding the absence of forgery or falsification in the medical certificates.
• Probative Value of Evidence: Whether the medical certificates presented by the employee should be given credence over the testimonies of the employer's medical doctors who refuted the diagnoses and duration of the illness.

• Patent Abuse of Sick Leave Privileges: Dismissal was valid because patent abuse of sick leave privileges was sufficiently established. The Court found that the cumulative circumstances—discrepancies between the reason given for the sick call ("sore eyes") and the medical certificate ("systemic viral disease"), the contradiction between the attending physician's medical certificate and his own progress notes, the failure to undergo standard medical procedures, and the pattern of excessive absences (85 days in 1989, 115 days in 1988)—demonstrated patent abuse. Previous infractions within the three-year period were correctly used as justification for dismissal for a subsequent similar offense.
• Probative Value of Evidence: The lower courts' factual findings were overturned due to misapprehension of facts. Credence was given to the testimonies of the employer's medical doctors who were subjected to cross-examination over the bare medical certificates of the attending physician who was not presented as a witness. The glaring inconsistencies between the attending physician's certificate and progress note severely undermined the employee's defense.

• Burden of Proof in Termination Cases — The basic principle in termination cases is that the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and valid cause; failure to do so necessarily means the dismissal was illegal. For dismissal to be valid, the evidence must be substantial and not arbitrary, founded on clearly established facts. Applied: PLDT successfully discharged this burden by presenting substantial evidence of Balbastro's patent abuse of sick leave privileges.
• Equilibrium in Labor Justice — While the law tilts the scale of justice in favor of labor to recognize the inherent economic inequality between labor and management, the intent is to balance the scale, not to cause injustice to the employer. The law authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer, and does not compel an employer to retain an employee who has been shown to be a gross liability. Applied: Compassion for labor does not justify forcing PLDT to retain an employee whose patent abuse of sick leave privileges was detrimental to its telecommunications operations.

• "While it is true that compassion and human consideration should guide the disposition of cases involving termination of employment since it affects one's source or means of livelihood, it should not be overlooked that the benefits accorded to labor do not include compelling an employer to retain the services of an employee who has been shown to be a gross liability to the employer. The law in protecting the rights of the employees authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer."
• "Justitia nemini neganda est (Justice is to be denied to none)."

• Royal Crown Internationale v. NLRC, G.R. No. 78085, October 16, 1989, 178 SCRA 569 — Followed. Cited for the principle that the burden of proof in termination cases rests upon the employer to show just and valid cause.
• Stellar Industrial Services, Inc. v. NLRC, 322 Phil. 352 (1996) — Followed. Cited for the rule that previous infractions may be used as justification for an employee's dismissal from work in connection with a subsequent similar offense.
• Philippine Geothermal, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 106370, September 8, 1994, 236 SCRA 371 — Followed. Cited for the doctrine that labor protection authorizes neither the oppression nor self-destruction of the employer, and that justice must not be denied to anyone.
• St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, 356 Phil. 811 (1998) — Applied. Cited as the procedural basis for referring the petition from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals.

• Department Order No. ADM-79-02 (PLDT Company Rules) — Enumerates the grounds for considering absences unauthorized, without pay, and subject to disciplinary action: (1) forged medical certificate, (2) alteration as to date and contents, (3) falsity as to facts stated, (4) certificate issued by a doctor not qualified to attend to the illness, and (5) patent abuse of sick leave privileges. Applied to find that Balbastro's actions constituted patent abuse of sick leave privileges, justifying her third offense and subsequent dismissal under the company's progressive penalty scheme.

Ynares-Santiago, Callejo, Sr., Chico-Nazario, Nachura