5/3/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly CATHAY next argues that the Court of Appeals erred in not admitting as evidence the affidavit of Dr. Fahy. We agree. The appellate court may have overlooked the principle in labor cases that the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not always controlling.[10] It is not necessary that affidavits and other documents presented conform to the technical rules of evidence as the Court maintains a liberal stance regarding procedural deficiencies in labor case.[11] Section 3, Rule V, of the New Rules of procedure of the NLRC specifically allows parties to submit position papers accompanied by all supporting documents including affidavits of their respective witnesses which take the place of their testimonies.[12] Thus, the fact that Dr. Fahy was not presented as witness to identify and testify on the contents of her affidavit was not a fatal procedural flaw that affected the admissibility of her affidavit as evidence. The non-presentation of Dr. Fahy during the trial was duly explained - she was no longer connected with CATHAY and had transferred residence to Ireland. It is for this same reason that we find no error in the NLRC's admission of Dr. Fahy's written medical notes as newly-discovered evidence. Moreover, the submission of additional evidence before the NLRC is not prohibited by the New Rule of Procedure of the NLRC, such submissions not being prejudicial to the party for the latter could submit counterevidence.[13] Notwithstanding the foregoing, we find Singson to have been illegally dismissed from the service. Granting without admitting that indeed respondent was suffering from asthma, this alone would not be valid ground for CATHAY to dismiss her summarily. Section 8, Rule I, Book VI, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code requires a certification by a competent public health authority that the disease is of such nature or at such a stage that it cannot be cured within a period of six (6) months even with proper medical treatment. In the instant case, no certification by competent public health authority was presented by CATHAY. It dismissed Singson based only on the recommendation of its company doctors who concluded that she was afflicted with asthma. It did not likewise show proof that Singson's asthma could not be cured in six (6) months even with proper medical treatment. On the contrary, when Singson returned to the company clinic on 3 September 1991 or five (5) days after her initial examination on 29 August 1991, Dr. Fahy diagnosed her condition to have vastly improved. CATHAY could not take refuge in Clause 22 of the Conditions of Service it entered into with Singson. Although a certification by a competent public health authority is not required, still CATHAY is obliged to follow several steps under the Conditions of Service before terminating its employee. The pertinent part of Clause 22 thereof provides - Clause 22. Sick Leave. - xxxx In case of serious illness the Company will grant sick leave with full pay for the first three months and with 2/3 of pay for the fourth month. Consideration will be given to granting the cabin crew further sick leave, either with pay or off pay up to a further two months, or retiring the cabin crew on medical ground xxxx https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52565 4/6