The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that an employee’s mere absence from work, without clear proof of intent to sever the employment relationship, is insufficient to establish abandonment, as it declared the dismissal of a worker illegal despite his unauthorized absences.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the Third Division partially granted the petition of worker Alvin G. Carpio, ruling that his dismissal was illegal because his unauthorized absences, by themselves, did not establish abandonment.

“Mere absence from work, without more, will ordinarily fail to support a finding of abandonment of work, absent any overt act from the employee clearly showing that he or she intends to sever his or her employment. Even so, an employee who was terminated for unjustified absence from work is not entitled to backwages notwithstanding the illegality of his dismissal,” the SC said.  

FACTS AND ISSUE

The case arose from Carpio’s complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against Green Era Biotech Corp. and Great Value Management and Services Corporation. He claimed he was illegally dismissed in May 2018 and argued that Great Value was engaged in prohibited labor-only contracting.  

The respondents argued that Great Value was Carpio’s legitimate employer and that he was validly dismissed after repeatedly incurring unauthorized absences, including from May 11 to 19, 2018, which they considered abandonment of work.  

Carpio maintained that some absences were due to illness, that he had sought permission from his supervisors, and that he later attempted to return to work but was denied entry.  

The Labor Arbiter dismissed Carpio’s illegal dismissal complaint but awarded nominal damages for violation of procedural due process. The National Labor Relations Commission later declared the companies engaged in labor-only contracting but upheld the validity of Carpio’s dismissal, a ruling that the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed. Carpio then elevated the case to the SC.

The issue before the SC was whether Carpio had been legally dismissed.  

RULING

The SC partially granted Carpio’s petition, reversed the CA insofar as it upheld his dismissal, and ordered his reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and privileges, but without backwages. It directed the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement if reinstatement is no longer feasible, as well as nominal damages and legal interest.  

The SC ruled that abandonment requires not only an unjustified absence but also clear proof that the employee intended to sever the employment relationship. It found no such evidence, noting that Carpio attempted to return to work and promptly challenged his dismissal by filing an illegal dismissal complaint.  

The SC also held that Great Value’s policy treating five consecutive days of unauthorized absence as a dismissible offense was disproportionately harsh, stressing that dismissal must be commensurate with the employee’s wrongdoing.  

“Mere absence from or failure to work is not tantamount to abandonment,” the SC reiterated.  

Despite declaring the dismissal illegal, the SC denied backwages because Carpio’s absences remained unjustified and the employer acted in good faith in relying on its company policy. 

The SC also sustained the award of nominal damages after finding that the employers failed to observe procedural due process in terminating his employment.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.