Article 299 and the Day I Cried in a Hospital Room

When compliance, compassion, and HR collide — the story behind a disease-related separation no one sees.

A patient at the hospital room

I saw this thread today at a Facebook HR Group Forum:

“Silent reader po ako rito. Marami rami rin ako natututunan. May question po ako, may employee kami na halos 1 cut-off ng absent, hindi pa rin siya ini-issue-han ng fit to work kasi hindi pa rin siya magaling.

Gusto na siyang tanggalin ng head niya kaso sabi ko bawal yun kasi health-related yung reason ng pag-absent ng staff niya. May karapatan ba tanggalin ng company ang employee na yun? Or need talaga siyang hintayin makabalik?”

And I paused.

That question may seem technical on the surface, but beneath it lies pressure, operational demands, targets, and frustration.

And somewhere in that equation — a sick employee.

Under the Labor Code of the Philippines, specifically Article 299, termination due to disease is allowed if:

• The illness cannot be cured within six months even with proper treatment;

• There is certification from a competent public health authority;

• Separation pay is granted.

Legally, yes — there are situations where termination due to disease is valid.

But here’s what many don’t realize:

Over time, the courts have made this ground more stringent. Today, employers must strictly comply with:

• Medical certification from a competent public health authority.

• Proper observance of due process.

• Careful documentation of the steps taken.

Termination due to disease is no longer a simple formality — unlike when I handled a similar case years ago. Back then, the operations head and the owner signed the separation. I was fortunate that we didn’t have to go through an adversarial Notice to Explain (NTE) process or other procedural hoops before separation. The decision was grounded in medical reality, not misconduct.

And the company was compassionate.

She received separation pay equivalent to one-half month salary for every year of service. Her HMO coverage was extended even after separation. There were even discussions about additional support to help her. In business, especially when operations are affected, compassion is rarely the default. But in this case, it was present.

A few weeks later, I visited her in the hospital.

Her chronic kidney disease had already progressed. Her creatinine levels were high enough to affect her brain — she had regressed in function and struggled to regulate her body temperature. I remember asking hospital staff to cover the aircon shaft because she was shivering. Her family and partner were there. Quiet. Helpless.

She had refused dialysis. A relative with the same condition underwent it and eventually passed. Fear shaped her decision — and that was her right. Dialysis prolongs life; it does not cure kidney failure.

A few days later, she passed away.

So when I read threads asking, “May karapatan ba tanggalin?” I don’t just see a legal question. I see the human weight behind it.

Article 299 exists because there are situations where employment and health can no longer coexist sustainably. Today, the courts have made it clear that employers must follow the rules strictly. Back then, the process was simpler — but compassion was still essential, and we were fortunate to have leadership who exercised it.

Years later, another employee, a manager, was separated under Article 299 and survived a few months before cancer took over — a different case, but the same application of the law. I assisted them in processing their SSS claim, and I shared with management my prior experience handling similar situations.

It serves as a reminder that health crises are unpredictable, and that even when the legal requirements are fully met, HR decisions still intersect with life in ways no law can fully capture.

If you are in HR long enough, you will encounter moments where:

• The decision is legally defensible.

• Documentation is complete.

• The business impact is real.

And it still feels heavy.

That does not mean the company was heartless. It means some decisions sit at the uncomfortable intersection of business and humanity.

To the HR who asked that question:

Yes, a company may terminate under Article 299 — but only if all legal requirements are strictly followed, and always with fairness and compassion. Because compliance without compassion becomes cruelty. But compassion without structure becomes chaos.

HR stands in between. And sometimes, we carry the stories long after the paperwork is done.

About Me:

Joseline M. Alosbaños, known as the HR Carousel Ringmistress, is a Philippine-based Certified HR Practitioner with over twenty years of experience in Human Resources Management. Her extensive career spans various sectors, including corporate, freelancing, and consulting, equipping her with a wide range of skills. Joseline excels in employee relations, talent acquisition, total rewards management, HR operations, and organizational development, successfully implementing HR strategies that align with business objectives and promote a positive workplace atmosphere. If you require my services, feel free to contact me at joyce.alosbanos@gmail.com.