Manila: The Supreme Court (SC) has reinstated an employee who was terminated for 'unauthorized absences', stating that a worker's absence from work alone is insufficient to prove abandonment or justify dismissal.
According to Philippines News Agency, the decision was penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh and released by the high tribunal's Third Division. The SC found Green Era Biotech Corp. and Great Value Management and Services Corporation (Great Value) guilty of illegally dismissing production utility worker Alvin G. Carpio. The ruling reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ordering the employer to reinstate Carpio to his former position without loss of privileges and seniority, but without the right to back wages.
The court added that if reinstatement is no longer viable, the employer must compensate Carpio with separation pay equivalent to one month for every year of service, along with nominal damages amounting to PHP30,000. Carpio asserted that he was initially employed by Green Era Biotech but was later transferred to its manpower service provider, Great Value.
Carpio's absence from work for eight consecutive days due to illness led Great Value to issue a notice to explain, citing that unauthorized absences breached company policy. The policy allows for dismissal after at least five days of unexplained absences. He was cautioned that another similar violation would result in an absence without leave (AWOL) notice.
Following another nine-day absence, Great Value issued an AWOL notice, labeling his repeated absences as serious misconduct and abandonment of work, both of which are grounds for dismissal. Despite later taking leave with his supervisor's consent, Carpio was barred from the workplace upon his return and informed by his foreman that his employment had been terminated due to being declared AWOL.
Carpio proceeded to file a complaint for illegal dismissal, among other claims. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, with both the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals upholding this decision. However, the SC overturned these findings, ruling Carpio's dismissal illegal.
The SC emphasized that proving abandonment, defined as the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume work, requires evidence of two elements: an absence without a valid reason and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. The court highlighted the importance of the second element, stating it must be demonstrated through the employee's actions. The burden of proof rests on the employer.
In Carpio's case, while his absences were unauthorized, the SC found no indication of his intention to abandon his job. Instead, Carpio attempted to return to work and promptly contested his dismissal by filing a complaint. The SC underscored that mere absence from work cannot be deemed as abandonment without an overt act from the employee signaling a desire to terminate employment. The court reiterated that absence alone does not equate to abandonment.
The SC also ruled that Great Value's policy of mandating dismissal for five days of unexplained absences was disproportionate to the offense and could not justify Carpio's termination.
