ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

contact

MON-SAT 8:30AM-5:30PM

June 1, 2022

REQUIREMENT TO UNDERGO A MEDICAL EXAMINATION: A MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE

Image via: https://www.larssie.com/image/catalog/medischcertificaat_ENG.jpg

More on management prerogative: Management prerogative and rights of employers

  • Every employer has the inherent right to regulate all aspects of employment including dismissal

  • The requirement to undergo a medical examination is a lawful exercise of management prerogative

  • Management prerogative is not unlimited

Medical examination may be required by the employer. It is a management prerogative.

For a better appreciation, let us take the case of Victorino Opinaldo vs. Narcisa Ravina (G.R.No. 196573, October 16, 2013).

Narcisa Ravina (Ravina) is the general manager and sole proprietor of a Security Agency. Victorino Opinaldo (Opinaldo) on the other hand, is a security guard who had worked for the agency until his alleged illegal dismissal by Ravina on December 22, 2006.

Accordingly, prior to his dismissal, Opinaldo was assigned by Ravina to PAIJR Furniture Accessories (PAIJR). After sometime, PAIJR requested Ravina to relieve Opinaldo for the reason that the latter was no longer physically fit to perform his duties and responsibilities as a company guard because of his health condition. Ravina acceded to the request of PAIJR.

Consequently, Ravina required Opinaldo to submit a medical certificate to prove that he is physically and mentally fit for work as security guard. On September 6, 2006, Ravina reassigned Opinaldo to Gomez Construction. After working for a period of two (2) weeks for Gomez construction and upon receipt of his salary for services rendered within the said two-week period, Opinaldo ceased to report for work. The records show that Opinaldo’s post at Gomez Construction was the last assignment given to him by respondent.

On November 7, 2006, Opinaldo filed a complaint against Ravina with the Department of Labor and Employment Regional Office in Cebu City for underpayment of salary and nonpayment of other labor standard benefits. The parties agreed to settle and reached a compromise agreement. Opinaldo also signed a Quitclaim and Release before the said Regional Office of DOLE.

After almost four weeks from the settlement of the case, Opinaldo returned to Ravina’s office on December 22, 2006. Opinaldo claimed that when he asked Ravina to sign an SSS Sickness Notification which he was going to use to avail of the discounted fees for a medical check-up, Ravina allegedly refused and informed him that he was no longer an employee of the Agency. Ravina allegedly told him that when he signed the quitclaim and release form, Ravina already considered him to have quit his employment. Ravina, on the other hand, counterclaims that she did not illegally dismiss Opinaldo and that it was a valid exercise of management prerogative that he was not given any assignment pending the submission of the required medical certificate of his fitness to work.

Is there an illegal dismissal in this case?

The Supreme Court says:

Yes.

Ravina failed to establish that Opinaldo was dismissed for valid causes. For one, there is no evidence that complainant was suffering from physical illness which will explain his lack of assignment. Further, there is no admissible proof that Ravina even required Opinaldo to submit a medical certificate.

To note, the requirement to undergo a medical examination is a lawful exercise of management prerogative on Ravina’s part. Jurisprudence is replete with cases recognizing the right of the employer to have free reign and enjoy sufficient discretion to regulate all aspects of employment, including the prerogative to instill discipline in its employees and to impose penalties, including dismissal, upon erring employees. However, the exercise of management prerogative is not unlimited. Managerial prerogatives are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice.

In this case, Ravina failed to prove that she has notified Opinaldo that her continuous refusal to provide him any work assignment was due to his non-submission of the medical certificate. Had Ravina exercised the rules of fair play, Opinaldo would have had the option of complying or not complying with the medical certificate requirement – having full knowledge of the consequences of his actions.


Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.

All rights reserved.


SUBSCRIBE NOW FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES!

[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

0 Shares
Share
Tweet
Share