Supreme Court: Absence not sole proof of abandonment of work

MANILA, Philippines — Absence from work does not automatically amount to job abandonment or justify dismissal, the Supreme Court has ruled.

In a decision dated Nov. 19, 2025, the high court's Third Division found Green Era Biotech Corp. and manpower service provider Great Value Management and Services Corp. liable for illegally dismissing production utility worker Alvin Carpio. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.

The case stemmed from Carpio's absences from work. He was initially hired by Green Era Biotech before being transferred to Great Value.

Carpio first missed eight straight days of work because of illness, prompting Great Value to issue a notice to explain.

The company said unauthorized absences violated its internal policy, which allowed dismissal for employees with at least five days of unexplained absences. Carpio was warned that another infraction would result in an absence without leave, or AWOL, notice.

Carpio later had another nine-day stretch of consecutive absences. Great Value then issued an AWOL notice, treating his absence as serious misconduct and job abandonment.

After these incidents, Carpio took authorized leave with his supervisor's permission. But when he tried to return to work the next day, he was barred from entering the premises.

His foreman later told him he could no longer work because he had been declared AWOL.

Carpio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint, a ruling later upheld by the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals.

The ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled in Carpio's favor.

The high court said employers must prove two elements to establish job abandonment: that the employee was absent without a valid reason and that the employee clearly intended to sever the employment relationship.

In Carpio's case, the Supreme Court said his absences were unauthorized, but there was no evidence that he intended to permanently leave his job.

The court said his attempt to return to work and his filing of an illegal dismissal complaint showed that he wanted to remain employed.

"In fact, following his absences, Carpio even attempted to report for work, but was no longer allowed to do so, and he thus filed a case for illegal dismissal protesting his removal from work," the decision read. "To the Court's mind, these acts reinforce the fact that Carpio lacked intent to sever his employment with Great Value and Green Era Biotech, notwithstanding his unexplained absences."

Dismissal too harsh. The Supreme Court also found Great Value's absenteeism policy too severe. "The Court finds that Great Value's policy on absenteeism, which prescribes a penalty of dismissal for, at least, five days of unexplained absences, is too harsh and must be tempered," the court said.

The court then ordered the companies to reinstate Carpio to his former position.

Carpio, however, was not awarded backwages. The court said management acted in good faith based on his repeated unauthorized absences.

If reinstatement is no longer possible, the companies must pay him separation pay instead.