The Supreme Court has ruled that absence from work, even for several consecutive days, does not automatically amount to job abandonment or justify dismissal.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC Third Division said employers must prove not only that a worker was absent without valid reason, but also that the employee clearly intended to abandon the job.
The ruling reversed the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the Court of Appeals, which had all dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint filed by production utility worker Alvin G. Carpio.
The high court found Green Era Biotech Corp. and its manpower service provider, Great Value Management and Services Corporation, liable for illegally dismissing Carpio.
Carpio said he was originally hired by Green Era Biotech before being transferred to Great Value. His case stemmed from his failure to report for work for eight consecutive days due to illness, prompting the agency to issue him a notice to explain.
Great Value told Carpio that his absences violated company policy, which allowed the immediate dismissal of workers who had at least five days of unexplained absences.
Carpio was later absent again for another nine consecutive days. The agency then issued an absence without leave, or AWOL, notice, saying his continued absence amounted to serious misconduct and work abandonment.
However, Carpio was later allowed by his supervisor to go on leave. When he tried to report back to work the next day, security personnel barred him from entering the facility. His foreman later informed him that he had been terminated under the AWOL declaration.
Carpio filed an illegal dismissal complaint, but the Labor Arbiter ruled against him. The NLRC and the Court of Appeals also upheld his dismissal, prompting him to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.
The SC reversed the lower rulings and declared his termination illegal.
The high court said abandonment has two essential elements: the employee must have failed to report for work without a valid or justifiable reason, and the employee must have shown a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship.
The SC stressed that the second element is the more important requirement and must be proven through deliberate and overt acts. Since abandonment is a ground for dismissal, the burden of proof rests on the employer.
In Carpio’s case, the SC said his consecutive absences may have been unauthorized, but there was no proof that he intended to give up his job.
On the contrary, the court said Carpio’s attempt to return to work and his filing of an illegal dismissal complaint showed that he wanted to keep his employment.
The SC also rejected Great Value’s reliance on its internal policy allowing dismissal after five days of unexplained absences, ruling that company rules cannot override the legal standards for valid termination.
The court said dismissal was a disproportionate penalty for Carpio’s offense.
The SC ordered Green Era Biotech and Great Value to reinstate Carpio to his former position. If reinstatement is no longer feasible, the companies must pay him separation pay.
However, the high court denied Carpio’s claim for backwages, saying the employers acted in good faith based on the apparent unauthorized absences.
The ruling was not unanimous.
Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao dissented, saying Carpio’s dismissal was valid because he committed willful disobedience and serious misconduct by deliberately violating company rules.
Dimaampao also said Carpio failed to prove that his absences were due to illness because he did not submit medical certificates to his superiors.