MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that an employee’s absence from work alone does not constitute abandonment and cannot, by itself, serve as a basis for dismissal.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division declared Green Era Biotech Corp. and Great Value Management and Services Corporation liable for illegally dismissing production utility worker Alvin G. Carpio.

According to court records, Carpio was initially employed by Green Era Biotech before being transferred to its manpower service provider, Great Value.

After he was absent from work for eight consecutive days due to illness, Great Value issued him a notice to explain, citing a company policy that considers employees with at least five days of unexplained absences subject to dismissal. He was also warned that another similar violation would result in an absence without leave (AWOL) notice.

Carpio was later absent for another nine straight days, prompting Great Value to issue an AWOL notice that cited serious misconduct and abandonment of work as grounds for his dismissal.

The worker later took another leave with his supervisor’s permission. However, when he returned the following day, he was denied entry to the workplace. His foreman later informed him that he could no longer report for work because he had been declared AWOL.

Carpio subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, a ruling later affirmed by both the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed the earlier rulings and declared that Carpio had been illegally dismissed.

The high court reiterated that abandonment requires proof of two elements: that the employee was absent without a valid reason and that the employee clearly intended to sever the employer-employee relationship. It stressed that the second element is more significant and must be demonstrated through the employee’s actions.

The SC found that while Carpio’s absences were unauthorized, there was no evidence that he intended to abandon his job. Instead, it noted that he attempted to return to work and promptly questioned his dismissal by filing a complaint.

“[A]bsence from work, in itself, cannot generate a finding of abandonment, absent any overt act from the employee clearly manifesting his or her desire to end the employment. The Court repeats that mere absence from or failure to work is not tantamount to abandonment,” the decision read.

The SC also ruled that Great Value’s policy imposing dismissal after at least five days of unexplained absences could not justify Carpio’s termination because the penalty was disproportionate to the offense.

The court ordered Carpio’s reinstatement but ruled that he was not entitled to backwages, finding that the companies acted in good faith based on his unauthorized absences. If reinstatement is no longer feasible, the companies were ordered to pay separation pay instead.

In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao maintained that Carpio’s dismissal was valid, saying the employee committed willful disobedience and serious misconduct by violating company policy. He added that Carpio failed to substantiate his illness with medical certificates and that there was no indication Great Value would have denied his leave application had he followed the proper procedure.