Short answer. It depends on which part of the ground applies. The law allows dismissal for a disease where continued employment is prohibited by law, or is prejudicial to your health as well as to your co-employees' health. If neither condition is met, the ground as worded is not satisfied.
What the law says
An employer may terminate the services of an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees
Labor Code, Article 284 — Disease As A Ground. Read the full provision →
The two paths the law actually names
The provision allows termination for disease only where continued employment is prohibited by law, or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees. Read closely, the second path is phrased as prejudice to the employee's own health together with prejudice to co-employees, not either one on its own. So a disease that genuinely affects only the employee, with no impact on coworkers and no independent legal prohibition on continued employment, does not obviously fit either path as the statute states them.
Why the exact wording matters here
This is a situation where the honest answer depends closely on the specific facts and on how a disease's effects are actually assessed, rather than on a simple yes or no. Whether a disease is found to be prohibited by law for continued employment in a given role, separate from any effect on coworkers, is its own legal and medical question. The statute's phrasing does not give a general employee a simple guarantee either way based only on the fact that others are unaffected.
Separation pay is required either way
Where this ground is validly invoked, the law conditions it on the employee being paid separation pay, equivalent to at least one month's salary or to one-half month's salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, with a fraction of at least six months counted as one whole year. This payment requirement is not optional; it is written into the same provision as a condition attached to using disease as a ground for termination.
What to do if you are facing this
If you are told your dismissal is based on a disease that you believe affects only you, it is worth looking closely at exactly which basis your employer is invoking, a legal prohibition on your continued employment, or prejudice to health, and asking what evidence supports it. Because the statute ties health-related prejudice to both your own health and your coworkers', the specific medical findings and documentation involved matter a great deal to how this ground actually applies to your situation.