Supreme Court decision: Absence alone insufficient to prove work abandonment

As it ruled the dismissal of a production utility worker illegal, the Supreme Court (SC) reiterated that an employee’s absence alone is insufficient to prove abandonment or justify dismissal.

In an 18-page decision, the SC Third Division found a company and its manpower service provider liable for the illegal dismissal of the employee and ordered it to reinstate him to his former position, without loss of privileges and seniority, but without any right to back wages.

Should reinstatement no longer be possible, the SC declared that the two are jointly and solidarily liable to pay the employee separation pay equivalent to one month's pay for every year of service, with a fraction of at least six months considered as one whole year, from April 2015 up to the date of finality of the decision.

Aside from this, the two are also ordered to pay nominal damages of P30,000.

“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,” the SC said.

“Even so, an employee who was terminated for unjustified absence from work is not entitled to back wages notwithstanding the illegality of his dismissal,” it added.

According to the SC, the employee said he was initially hired by the company and later transferred to its manpower service provider.

After he was absent from work for eight consecutive days due to illness, the service provider asked him to explain. It said that under the company policy, employees who incur at least five days of unexplained absences may be dismissed.

He was also warned that another violation would lead to an AWOL notice.

The SC said the employee was then absent for another nine days, leading the service provider to issue an AWOL notice.

Following this, he took a leave with his supervisor’s permission. However, he was barred from entering the workplace when he went back to work.

According to the SC, his foreman later informed him that he had been declared AWOL. This led the employee to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, while the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.

For its part, the SC reversed the findings.

The SC said that abandonment requires the employee to be absent without a valid reason and that the employee clearly intended to end the employer-employee relationship.

The decision, penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, was promulgated in November 2025 and made public in June 2026. –NB, GMA News