Can You Be Fired for Being Sick?

The rule is Article 299 [284] of the Labor Code ([284] is its number before the 2015 renumbering):

The employee must have been "found to be suffering" from a disease, and one of these must also be true:

• continued employment is prohibited by law; or
• continued employment is prejudicial (harmful) to the employee's health as well as to the health of co-employees.

Yes, under the implementing rules. The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, in the 1989 text on the Supreme Court E-Library (Book VI, Section 8), say 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 six months, the rules say the employer asks the employee to take a leave of absence, and must reinstate the employee to the former position as soon as his or her normal health is restored.

So, under the rules, an employer cannot simply rely on its own opinion or on a short sick leave. It needs a certificate from a competent public health authority about the six-month period.

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.

Use the separation pay calculator to estimate the amount. The final pay and separation pay guide explains what else is paid when employment ends.

For the separation pay for each cause in one table, see separation pay by cause.

No. The just causes for dismissal are in [Article 297 [282]](/law/labor-code/article-297): serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect, fraud or willful breach of trust, a crime against the employer or the employer's family, and analogous causes. Those are based on the employee's fault. Disease is a separate ground in which the employee is not at fault, which is why Article 299 requires separation pay. See Valid reasons to fire an employee.

If an employer ends the job of a regular employee because of illness without meeting the conditions of Article 299, the dismissal may be found illegal. Under [Article 294 [279]](/law/labor-code/article-294), an employee who is unjustly dismissed is entitled to reinstatement and full backwages. See Illegally dismissed: what can you get?

These are made-up examples to show how the rules work. They are not advice for any real case.

Nilo, a factory worker in Valenzuela, is out for three weeks with dengue. When he comes back, his supervisor tells him he is fired for missing work. On these facts, nothing shows that his continued work is prohibited by law or harmful to co-workers, and no certificate about a six-month cure period was issued, so the conditions of Article 299 do not appear to be met.

Tess, a cook in a restaurant, is diagnosed with a contagious illness that makes her continued work harmful to her own health and to the health of her co-workers. A competent public health authority certifies that it cannot be cured within six months even with treatment. Her employer may end her employment under Article 299, but must pay her separation pay.

Ramil has a back injury that his doctor says will heal in four months. Under the rules, his employer asks him to take a leave of absence and must take him back when he recovers.

Talk to a lawyer if you were dismissed while sick or right after a sick leave, if no medical certificate from a public health authority was shown, or if you were not paid separation pay. Employers planning to end employment for disease also need advice on the certificate. If you cannot afford a lawyer, see Free legal help in the Philippines.