By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — The Supreme Court has reaffirmed a long-standing labor principle that an employee’s absence from work, by itself, does not constitute abandonment and cannot automatically justify dismissal.
In a ruling penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the High Court’s Third Division declared the dismissal of production utility worker Alvin G. Carpio illegal, reversing earlier decisions by the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and the Court of Appeals.
The case stemmed from Carpio’s employment with Green Era Biotech Corp., where he was later assigned to its manpower agency, Great Value Management and Services Corporation.
Records showed that Carpio incurred an eight-day absence due to illness, prompting Great Value to issue him a notice to explain for violating the company’s attendance policy. The policy provides that employees who accumulate at least five days of unexplained absences may face dismissal.
After another nine consecutive days of absence, the company issued Carpio an absence without official leave (AWOL) notice, accusing him of serious misconduct and abandonment of work.
Carpio later secured permission from his supervisor to take another leave. However, upon reporting back to work the following day, he was refused entry into the workplace. His foreman later informed him that he had already been declared AWOL and was no longer allowed to return.
Believing he had been unjustly terminated, Carpio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
While labor tribunals initially ruled against him, the Supreme Court found that the evidence failed to establish abandonment.
The Court emphasized that abandonment requires proof of two essential elements: the employee’s unjustified absence from work and, more importantly, a clear and deliberate intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. The burden of proving both elements rests on the employer.
In Carpio’s case, the Court ruled that although his absences were unauthorized, there was no indication that he intended to abandon his job. Instead, his attempt to resume work and his prompt filing of an illegal dismissal complaint demonstrated his desire to remain employed.
The Supreme Court stressed that absence alone cannot be equated with abandonment without any overt act clearly showing an employee’s intention to end the employment relationship.
The High Court likewise ruled that Great Value’s policy imposing dismissal after five days of unexplained absences could not justify Carpio’s termination because the penalty was excessively harsh and disproportionate to the violation.
Consequently, the Court ordered Carpio’s reinstatement to his former position. Should reinstatement no longer be feasible, Green Era Biotech and Great Value were directed to pay him separation pay instead.
However, the Court denied Carpio’s claim for backwages, ruling that the employers acted in good faith when they terminated him based on his repeated unauthorized absences.
In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao maintained that Carpio’s dismissal was valid, arguing that he willfully violated company rules and failed to substantiate his illness with medical certificates. He also noted that there was no evidence the company would have denied his leave request had he complied with the prescribed procedures.
The ruling was issued in G.R. No. 267217, Alvin G. Carpio v. Green Era Biotech Corp., Mr. Johnson Li, Great Value Management and Services Corporation, and Ms. Ninay P. Rile, promulgated on Nov. 19, 2025.
ia/xf
