Absence from work alone cannot justify dismissal – SC

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) held in a ruling made public on Friday, June 26, that absence from work alone is not enough to justify dismissal from employment.

According to the High Court, abandonment of work or the refusal of an employee to work has two elements:

• The employee was absent with no valid reason.
• The employee clearly intended to cut the employer-employee ties.

“Of these, the second element is more important and must be shown through the employee’s actions. Since abandonment is a ground for dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proving both elements,” said the SC in a Third Division decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.

“Absence from work, in itself, cannot generate a finding of abandonment, absent any overt act from the employee clearly manifesting his or her desire to end the employment. The Court repeats that mere absence from or failure to work is not tantamount to abandonment,” it added.

Associate Justice Japar Diaampao, meanwhile, dissented and said the dismissal was justified because the employee in the case “committed willful disobedience and serious misconduct by deliberately violating company policy.”

Dimaampao added that the employee failed to prove his illnesses — which caused his absence — because he did not submit medical certificates.

What happened before

The ruling stemmed from the case involving Green Era Biotech Corp. and Great Value Management and Services Corporation’s alleged illegal dismissal of production utility worker Alvin Carpio.

Carpio said he was originally hired by Green Era, but was later transferred to the manpower agency Great Value. The latter issued him a notice to explain after he became absent from work for eight straight days due to illness.

Great Value said unauthorized absences violated company policy, which states that employees who incur at least five days of unexplained absences may be dismissed. Carpio was also told that another similar  violation would lead to an absence without leave (AWOL) notice. 

Later on, Carpio was absent from work again for nine consecutive days. Great Value issued him an AWOL notice and told him that continued absences were considered serious misconduct and abandonment of work. These were both grounds for dismissal, said the agency.

Carpio took another leave without asking for his supervisor’s permission. When he returned to work, he was barred from entering his workplace. Later, he was told that he could no longer report because he was deemed AWOL.

Carpio filed a complaint for his illegal dismissal, but the Labor Arbiter dismissed the action. The National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals both upheld the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. 

But the SC reversed these rulings, finding that Carpio was illegally dismissed.

The High Court said that although the absences were unauthorized, there was no evidence that the complainant sought to abandon his job. It added that Carpio tried returning to work and immediately challenged his removal.

“The SC also ruled that Great Value’s policy imposing dismissal for at least five days of unexplained absences could not justify Carpio’s termination because the penalty was disproportionate to the offense,” the High Court added.

In addition, the SC ordered Carpio’s reinstatement but ruled that he was not entitled to back wages because his dismissal was done in good faith due to his unauthorized absences. If he could not be reinstated, the SC said the company may give him separation pay instead. – Rappler.com