By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
BISON MANAGEMENT CORPORATION VS. AAA AND DALE PERNITO, G.R. NO. 256540 (FEBRUARY 14, 2024): DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEE FOUND POSITIVE OF HIV IS ILLEGAL
There are two complainants in the instant labor dispute, i.e., AAA (initials used due to circumstances requiring confidentiality under Section 44 of Republic Act No. 11166, otherwise known as the Philippine HIV and AIDS Policy Act, and Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, otherwise known as the Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances), and Dale Pernito, who both were hired and deployed as Overseas Filipino Workers in Saudi Arabia.
AAA was hired as Cleaning Laborer in 2017 and was deployed in Saudi Arabia on a usual two (2)-year contract. In January 2019, AAA underwent a routinary medical examination and was found positive for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). On this basis, his foreign employer terminated his employment because under the laws of Saudi Arabia, an HIV+ individual is considered unfit to work. AAA filed the Complaint. As for Pernito, he was deployed sometime in 2018 as Restaurant Worker and after working for nine (9) months, he was terminated from employment supposedly because he had expressed interest to resign and transfer to another employer.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed their Complaint but was reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the NLRC which led the petitioner to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
In deciding the case for AAA, the Supreme Court held that under the doctrine of lex loci contractus, it is the general rule that the Philippine laws govern overseas employment contracts except for the following exception wherein foreign law may apply provided that the following requisites are met: 1) that it is expressly stipulated in the overseas employment contract that a specific foreign law shall govern; 2) that the foreign law invoked must be proven before the courts pursuant to the Philippine rules on evidence; 3) that the foreign law stipulated in the overseas employment contract must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy of the Philippines; and 4) that the overseas employment contract must be processed through the POEA.
The Court held that the exception of lex loci contractus is not applicable because of the absence of the second and third requisites with the third one being the most important. On the second requisite, the Court was not satisfied of what petitioner Bison submitted as the copy of the purported law of Saudi Arabia which supposedly allows termination of employment based on HIV+ findings was not presented. The Court held that “To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Revised Rules of Court. Failure to prove the foreign law activates the doctrine of processual presumption, whereby the foreign law is deemed to be the same as Philippine law.”
Under the third element, the Supreme Court restated its ruling in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs. Ople, G.R No. 61594 (September 28, 1990) wherein the Supreme Court held that if the foreign law stipulated is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, then Philippine laws shall govern. The Court reiterated its ruling in Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA) vs. Rebesencio, G.R. No. G.R No. 198587 (January 14, 2015) wherein it applied Philippine law in deciding the dispute relating to employees who were dismissed due to their pregnancy as it involved a matter of public interest and public policy.
More importantly, the Supreme Court held that termination on the ground of a positive HIV test result is not legal under Philippine law. Section 49 (a) of RA 11166 makes it unlawful for an employee to be terminated from work on the sole basis of their HIV status. The Court held: “The CA correctly ruled that since Philippine law ‘categorically prohibits the use of a person’s HIV+ condition as a ground for dismissal…the inescapable conclusion is that there was no valid cause to terminate (AAA), and that doing so is tantamount to illegal dismissal.’ While it is true that disease may be a ground for termination under Article 299 of the Labor Code, as amended and renumbered, Bison has conceded that ‘HIV positive is not yet an illness/disease.”