PH Supreme Court: Absence from work alone not enough to prove abandonment

The Philippine Supreme Court has ruled that an employee's absence from work, by itself, does not constitute abandonment and cannot automatically serve as a basis for dismissal.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the Court's Third Division declared Green Era Biotech Corp. and Great Value Management and Services Corporation liable for illegally dismissing production utility worker Alvin G. Carpio.

Carpio said he was initially hired by Green Era Biotech before he was transferred to its manpower service provider, Great Value. He was first issued a notice to explain after being absent for eight consecutive days due to illness, with the company citing its policy that employees who accumulate at least five days of unexplained absences may be dismissed.

After being absent for another nine days, Great Value served Carpio an absence without leave (AWOL) notice, saying his continued unauthorized absences constituted serious misconduct and abandonment of work, both of which are grounds for termination.

Carpio later obtained his supervisor's permission to take another leave. However, when he returned to work the following day, he was prevented from entering the workplace. His foreman subsequently informed him that he could no longer report for work because he had already been declared AWOL.

Carpio challenged his dismissal before the labor tribunals, but both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed his complaint. The Court of Appeals later affirmed those rulings.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed the earlier decisions, finding that Carpio had been illegally dismissed.

The Court reiterated that abandonment requires proof of two elements: first, that the employee was absent without a valid reason; and second, that the employee clearly intended to sever the employer-employee relationship. It emphasized that the second element is the more crucial requirement and must be demonstrated through the employee's overt acts.

The decision stressed that the burden of proving both elements rests with the employer.

“[A]bsence 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.”

While the Court acknowledged that Carpio's absences were unauthorized, it found no evidence that he intended to abandon his job. Instead, it noted that he attempted to return to work and promptly filed an illegal dismissal complaint after being barred from the workplace.

The Supreme Court also struck down Great Value's company policy imposing dismissal for employees with at least five days of unexplained absences, ruling that the penalty was disproportionate to the offense.

The Court ordered Carpio's reinstatement but denied his claim for back wages, finding that the companies acted in good faith when they dismissed him based on his unauthorized absences. If reinstatement is no longer feasible, the companies were directed to pay him separation pay instead.

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao maintained that Carpio's dismissal was valid, arguing that he committed willful disobedience and serious misconduct by repeatedly violating company policy.

Dimaampao also said Carpio failed to substantiate his claim of illness because he did not submit medical certificates, adding that there was no indication Great Value would have denied his leave request had he followed the proper procedures.