Article 299 [284] of the Labor Code: Disease as ground for termination
The number in brackets, [284], is the article's number before the 2015 renumbering of the Labor Code.
Status: In force
What does Article 299 [284] say?
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.
Read the Labor Code on the DOLE website (it uses the article numbers before 2015)
What does it mean in plain language?
Article 299 (Article 284 before the 2015 renumbering) allows an employer to end the employment of an employee who has a disease, but only when continued employment is prohibited by law or is harmful to the employee's own health and to the health of co-workers. The employee must be paid separation pay: at least one month salary or one-half month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater.
The full text:
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.
How does it work in real life?
Gina: a contagious illness in a food plant
Gina works on a food processing line and is diagnosed with a contagious disease. A public health authority certifies that it cannot be cured within six months even with treatment. Her continued work could endanger her co-workers. This is the situation Article 299 describes, and she is entitled to separation pay of at least one month salary or one-half month salary per year of service, whichever is greater.
Ramil: an illness that can be treated
Ramil is diagnosed with an illness that his doctors expect to treat within three months. Under the 1989 implementing rules, his employer should not terminate him but should ask him to take a leave of absence and take him back when his health is restored.
Tess: no certificate, no payment
Tess is told she is "too sickly" and is let go without any health certificate and without separation pay. The conditions of Article 299 are not shown, so the termination may be questioned as an illegal dismissal.
What does this mean in practice?
- In illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proving that a dismissal was valid rests on the employer (Aldovino v. Gold and Green Manpower, 2019).
- Separation pay under Article 299 is apart from final pay for wages and benefits already earned: see the final pay and separation pay guide.
- Sickness benefits from SSS and leave under a company policy are separate subjects, not covered by this article.
When can an employer end employment because of illness?
The article sets conditions that must all be met:
- the employee "has been found to be suffering from any disease";
- continued employment is either prohibited by law, or prejudicial to the employee's health as well as to the health of co-employees; and
- the employer pays the separation pay set in the article.
An illness that does not meet these conditions is not a ground for termination under Article 299.
Is a medical certificate required?
The implementing rules add a condition. In the 1989 copy of the Omnibus Rules on the Supreme Court E-Library, Book VI, Section 8 says the employer "shall not terminate his employment unless there is a certification by competent public health authority" that the disease cannot be cured within six months even with proper medical treatment. If the disease can be cured within that period, the rule says the employer shall ask the employee to take a leave of absence and shall reinstate him or her to the former position once the employee's normal health is restored.
Whether this section is still worded the same in the current implementing rules was not confirmed on an official source that could be read.
How much separation pay is due?
| Item | Rule in Article 299 |
|---|---|
| Amount | At least one month salary, or one-half month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater |
| Partial years | A fraction of at least six months counts as one whole year |
The 1989 implementing rules (Book VI, Section 9) add that the termination pay shall in no case be less than one month pay. The separation pay calculator does the arithmetic.
How is Article 299 different from the other grounds?
- It is not a just cause under [Article 297 [282]](/law/labor-code/article-297), because the employee did nothing wrong. For just causes, separation pay is, as a rule, not required (Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot, 2005).
- It is not one of the business reasons in [Article 298 [283]](/law/labor-code/article-298). Those have their own notice rule and their own separation pay.
- A dismissal that does not meet the conditions of Article 299 is not authorized, and the employee may claim the remedies of [Article 294 [279]](/law/labor-code/article-294).
Frequently asked questions
Can I be fired for being sick in the Philippines?
Only in the case Article 299 [284] describes: the employee suffers from a disease and continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his or her health and to the health of co-employees. Being sick, by itself, is not a ground.
How much separation pay is due when employment ends because of disease?
At least one month salary or one-half month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater. A fraction of at least six months counts as one whole year.
Does the employer need a medical certificate?
The implementing rules (1989 copy on the E-Library) say the employer shall not terminate unless a competent public health authority certifies that the disease cannot be cured within six months even with proper medical treatment. If it can be cured within that period, the employee is asked to take a leave of absence instead.
Is termination for disease a just cause?
No. It is a separate ground in which the employee is not at fault, and the article requires separation pay. For the just causes in Article 297 [282], separation pay is, as a rule, not due.
General information, not legal advice. For your case, ask a lawyer, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) or the agency.
Was this page helpful?