Supreme Court: Employee Absence Alone Is Not Grounds for Job Abandonment or Dismissal

 

A worker's repeated absence from work does not automatically mean they have abandoned their job, according to a ruling from the Supreme Court, which clarified that employers must establish more than mere nonattendance before terminating an employee.

In a decision dated November 19, 2025, the Supreme Court's Third Division ruled that Green Era Biotech Corp. and manpower agency Great Value Management and Services Corp. illegally dismissed production utility worker Alvin Carpio. The decision, penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, reinforces the principle that job abandonment requires proof of intent, not simply prolonged absence.

The ruling centered on a key legal distinction. While unauthorized absences may violate company rules and warrant disciplinary measures, they do not by themselves demonstrate that an employee has chosen to permanently sever the employment relationship. The Court emphasized that both elements must be established before abandonment can be used as a valid ground for dismissal: the absence must be without a valid reason, and the employee must clearly intend to leave the job for good.

Carpio's employment history became the focal point of the dispute. Initially hired by Green Era Biotech Corp., he was later assigned to Great Value Management and Services Corp. During his employment, he was absent for eight consecutive days due to illness. The company responded by issuing a notice to explain, citing its attendance policy, which authorized dismissal after at least five days of unexplained absence. He was also warned that another similar incident could result in being declared absent without official leave, commonly referred to as AWOL.

A second incident followed when Carpio failed to report for work for another nine consecutive days. Great Value subsequently issued an AWOL notice and treated the matter as both serious misconduct and job abandonment.

The situation took a different turn after Carpio obtained approval from his supervisor for a later leave of absence. When he attempted to return to work the following day, he was denied entry to the workplace. His foreman informed him that he had already been classified as AWOL and could no longer resume his duties.

Believing he had been wrongfully removed from his position, Carpio filed an illegal dismissal complaint. His claim was initially rejected by the labor arbiter, a decision later affirmed by both the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court, however, reached the opposite conclusion.

According to the Court, Carpio's conduct was inconsistent with someone who intended to abandon his employment. His effort to report back to work after his absences, followed by his decision to pursue an illegal dismissal case, demonstrated a clear desire to continue working rather than end the employment relationship.

The decision explained that these actions directly contradicted the claim of abandonment. Instead of walking away from his job, Carpio actively sought to regain his position, indicating that he never intended to permanently leave his employer.

The Court also examined the employer's attendance policy and found it disproportionately severe. A rule imposing dismissal after only five days of unexplained absence, the justices said, failed to reflect the principle that disciplinary measures should be proportionate to the offense. Workplace discipline, much like a graduated system of penalties, should escalate according to the circumstances rather than immediately resorting to the most severe sanction.

As a result, the Supreme Court ordered Green Era Biotech Corp. and Great Value Management and Services Corp. to reinstate Carpio to his former position. If reinstatement is no longer feasible, the companies must instead provide separation pay.

The Court, however, declined to award backwages. It found that management acted in good faith when it enforced its attendance policy because of Carpio's repeated unauthorized absences, even though the dismissal itself was ultimately ruled unlawful.

The decision serves as an important reminder that unauthorized absences and job abandonment are not interchangeable under Philippine labor law. Employers must present convincing evidence that an employee deliberately intended to end the employment relationship before dismissal on the ground of abandonment can be legally sustained.