5/3/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
stewardess with ground duties on 12 March 1993 pending the resolution of the
petitions.
On 20 September 1999 the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the NLRC and
reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter declaring Singson to have been illegally
terminated. The appellate court anchored its judgment on the following findings: First,
Dr. Fowler's opinion about Singson's medical condition was based on the personal
examination of Dr. Fahy, and not his own. The appellate court held that a personal and
prolonged examination of a patient was necessary and crucial before he or she could be
properly diagnosed as afflicted with asthma,[7] and thus Dr. Fowler's expert opinion was
unreliable and mere hearsay. Second, CATHAY disregarded Sec. 8, Rule I, Book VI, of
the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code[8] which requires a certification by a
competent public health authority when disease is the reason for an employee's
separation from service, since it relied merely on the diagnosis of its company doctors,
Dr. Fowler and Dr. Fahy. Third, the NLRC erroneously relied on the affidavit executed
by Dr. Fahy since she was not personally presented as a witness to identify and testify
on its contents. Fourth, respondent passed the medical examination required of
prospective flight cabin attendants, the International Labor Organization's Occupational
Health and Safety in Civil Aviation examination, prior to her employment and found to
be fit for flight-related service. Fifth, CATHAY failed to adequately prove the health
standards required in aviation, particularly the non-qualification of flight attendants
afflicted with asthma to flight-related service.[9]
Consequently, the appellate court awarded respondent full back wages with
reinstatement, as well as moral exemplary damages, while deleting the award of actual
damages reasoning that no undue damage inured to her since her husband nonetheless
remained in Hongkong managing two (2) corporations. The appellate court however
declared the option given to respondent to continue her employment as a ground
stewardess with CATHAY to have been erroneously issued and consequently nullified
the same.
CATHAY now argues that the Court of Appeals should have confined its inquiry to issues
of want or excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion and not into the factual
findings of the NLRC since the petition before it was made under Rule 65.
This Court is not persuaded. CATHAY's petition for certiorari filed before the Court of
Appeals assailed specifically the judgment of the NLRC granting respondent the choice
to continue her employment with CATHAY as ground stewardess as, in fact, she had
been reinstated as such since 12 March 1993. On the other hand, respondent's petition
attacked the NLRC decision declaring her dismissal valid and nullifying the award of
damages in her favor on the basis of Dr. Fowler's testimony and not Dr. Lazo's.
Consequently, it was inevitable for the Court of Appeals to examine the evidence anew
to determine whether the factual findings of the NLRC were supported by the evidence
presented and the conclusions derived therefrom accurately ascertained. As pointed
out by the appellate court, this became even more essential in view of the fact that
there was a conflict of decision between the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. We thus find
no error in the appellate court's evaluation of the evidence despite the pleadings being
petitions for certiorari under Rule 65.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52565
3/6