FACTS:

Petitioner Omanfil International Manpower Development Corporation (Omanfil) hired respondent Rolando B. Mesina (Mesina) for an overseas work as an expediter at Al Khaji Joint Operations (AKJO) in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Mesina's employment contract stated that he would be employed for 24 months with a monthly salary of SR 4,000 and other benefits. After working for nine months, Mesina experienced chest pains and was admitted to a local hospital in Saudi Arabia. He was later advised to undergo an Angiogram Test in a better equipped hospital. Mesina claimed that MAZTPC requested AKJO to repatriate him due to his serious medical condition, while petitioners claimed that Mesina opted to come home to the Philippines for treatment. On February 22, 2006, Mesina was repatriated. Mesina then sought reimbursement for his medical expenses and further expenses for his illness, but petitioners refused to comply since the medical treatment could only be availed of during the period of employment. As a result, Mesina filed a case for illegal dismissal, refund of expenses, damages, and attorney's fees against petitioners. The Labor Arbiter dismissed Mesina's claim for illegal dismissal but ordered petitioners to pay him separation pay. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed it and declared Mesina's dismissal to be illegal. The CA held that petitioners failed to prove that Mesina's disease was prolonged or permanent, and they also failed to provide a medical certificate as required under the labor laws. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA denied. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not respondent Mesina was illegally dismissed by petitioners.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals (CA) held that respondent Mesina was illegally dismissed. The CA found that petitioners pre-terminated respondent's employment contract and repatriated him without any just or authorized cause. The CA also noted that petitioners failed to prove that respondent's disease could not be cured within six months even after proper medical treatment or that respondent's continued employment was prejudicial to his health or to those of his colleagues. Thus, the CA ordered petitioners to pay respondent full reimbursement of his Placement Fee and his salaries for the unexpired portion of his employment contract.

PRINCIPLES:

• Employees cannot be dismissed without just or authorized cause. (Illegal Dismissal)

• The absence of a medical certificate may not be determinative of whether an employee's illness can be considered as a just or authorized cause for termination. (Medical Certificate)

• The burden of proving that an employee's disease cannot be cured or that the employee's continued employment poses a risk to his health or to others lies with the employer. (Burden of Proof)