Employers are often confronted with a difficult question: May an employee who repeatedly fails to report for work simply be considered to have abandoned his/her employment? Many company handbooks classify prolonged unauthorized absences as a dismissible offense, leading employers to believe that termination necessarily follows once an employee goes AWOL. The Supreme Court, however, has cautioned that the answer is not always straightforward.
In Carpio v. Green Era Biotech Corp. (G.R. No. 267217, 5 November 2025), the Supreme Court clarified an important distinction between unauthorized absence and abandonment of work. The case involved an employee who incurred several consecutive unauthorized absences, was eventually declared Absent Without Leave (AWOL), and was thereafter prevented from returning to work. Invoking its company policy, which considered prolonged unauthorized absences as a dismissible offense, the employer maintained that the employee had already abandoned his employment. The Supreme Court, however, reached a different conclusion. While it acknowledged that the employee’s absences were indeed unauthorized, the Supreme Court held that unauthorized absences do not automatically constitute abandonment, nor do they invariably justify dismissal. Instead, each case must be examined in view of the employee’s conduct, the surrounding circumstances, and the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction imposed.
Absence Is Not the Same as Abandonment
At first glance, the distinction may appear semantic. After all, an employee who disappears from work for several days without permission has, in the ordinary sense of the word, “abandoned” his job. In labor law, however, abandonment carries a far more exacting meaning. It is not established by unauthorized absence alone, but by the concurrence of two (2) specific legal requirements.
First, the employee must have failed to report for work without a valid or justifiable reason. This element recognizes that not every absence from work is wrongful, even if it may be unauthorized. Employees may fail to report for work because of illness, emergencies, or other circumstances beyond their control. Accordingly, the law requires that the absence be both unauthorized and unjustified before it may even be considered as one of the requisites of abandonment. The inquiry, however, does not end there.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the employee must have clearly intended to sever the employer-employee relationship. This element is the more determinative of the two because abandonment is ultimately a question of intent. Such intent must be demonstrated through overt acts showing that the employee no longer wishes to continue his/her employment. Mere absence, alone, is insufficient. Thus, an employee may be absent for days or even weeks without authorization, yet if the surrounding circumstances demonstrate that employee still intended to return to work, abandonment cannot readily be inferred.
Filing an Illegal Dismissal Case Usually Negates Abandonment
The facts of Carpio aptly illustrate this principle. Although the employee in the said case incurred several unauthorized absences, he later attempted to return to work. Instead of being allowed to resume his duties, however, he was informed that he could no longer do so. Shortly thereafter, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
For the Supreme Court, these acts were fundamentally inconsistent with abandonment, and the rationale is rather straightforward. An employee who genuinely intends to sever the employment relationship does not ordinarily seek reinstatement almost immediately after being refused work. Indeed, the prompt filing of a illegal dismissal complaint has consistently been regarded as persuasive evidence that the employee desired to preserve – not sever – his/her employment. This does not, of course, excuse the employee’s unauthorized absences. For employers, this simply means that prolonged absence, standing alone, should not immediately be equated with abandonment. In this regard, before proceeding with dismissal, consideration should likewise be given to whether the employee’s subsequent acts demonstrate an intention to continue the employee relationship.
Can an Employer Dismiss an Employee for Repeated AWOL?
The answer is yes, but not invariably.
Employers unquestionably possess the prerogative to discipline employees who repeatedly fail to report for work. This prerogative, however, is not absolute. As the Supreme Court emphasized, disciplinary measures must bear a reasonable relationship to the gravity of the employee’s misconduct. This requirement assumes particular significance where the penalty imposed is dismissal, which remains to be the most severe employment sanction recognized by law. Accordingly, dismissal should not automatically follow every violation of company policy.
In Carpio, the employer’s handbook provided that an employee who incurs five (5) consecutive unauthorized absences may be dismissed. There, although the employee claimed that he had sought permission for his absences, the Supreme Court nevertheless treated the absences as unauthorized, there being no sufficient proof that prior notice had been given or authorization had been obtained from the employer. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that the existence of a company policy authorizing dismissal does not automatically render the penalty lawful. Although the employee admittedly violated company rules, the Supreme Court found dismissal to be a disproportionate penalty under the circumstances. Accordingly, the Court declared the dismissal illegal notwithstanding the employee’s unauthorized absences. It bears stressing, however, that the Court did not explain why the penalty was too harsh under the circumstances.
That is not to say that an employee who incurs unauthorized absences may not be held accountable. On the contrary, such conduct may still constitute a legitimate ground for disciplinary action – negligence, for example, if the circumstances and duration of the unauthorized absences, although not constituting abandonment, are such as to amount to neglect of duty. Verily, the significance of Carpio lies not in absolving employees of responsibility for their unauthorized absences, but in recognizing that the penalty imposed must remain proportionate to the offense committed.
Illegal Dismissal Does Not Always Entitle an Employee to Backwages
Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the decision lies in the remedy ultimately granted by the Supreme Court.
As a general rule, an employee who has been illegally dismissed is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, as well as full backwages computed from the time compensation was withheld until actual reinstatement. In Carpio, however, the Supreme Court adopted a more nuanced approach.
In the said case, although it declared the dismissal to be illegal, the Supreme Court nevertheless denied the employee’s claim for backwages. It recognized that the employee had, in fact, incurred unauthorized absences and that the employer acted in good faith in relying upon its existing company policy, even if such policy was ultimately found to have imposed a disproportionate penalty. In balancing these competing considerations, the Supreme Court ordered the employee’s reinstatement but declined to award backwages, recognizing that while the dismissal could not be sustained, neither could the employee’s conduct be entirely disregarded.
Procedural Due Process Remains Indispensable
Apart from finding that the dismissal lacked sufficient substantive basis – there being no abandonment, the Supreme Court likewise held that the employer failed to observe procedural due process.
It is well-settled that before an employee may be validly dismissed, the employer must first comply with the twin-notice rule. To this end, the employee must first be furnished with a written notice specifying the acts or omissions constituting the alleged offense and he/she must be afforded a genuine opportunity to explain. If dismissal is thereafter found warranted, the employer must issue a second notice communicating its decision after considering the employee’s explanation.
These requirements were not observed in Carpio. Although the employee received notices concerning his absences, he was never afforded a meaningful opportunity to defend himself. More importantly, he was never formally notified that his employment had been terminated. Instead, he merely received a text message informing him that he had been declared AWOL and could no longer return to work. The Supreme Court held that such procedure fell short of the requirements of due process and accordingly awarded nominal damages.
What Employers Should Do
The decision offers several practical lessons for employers. First, unauthorized absence should not automatically be equated with abandonment of work. Before invoking abandonment as a ground for dismissal, employers must be prepared to demonstrate not only that the employee was absent without authority, but also that he/she clearly intended to sever the employment relationship. In this regard, employers should document whether the employee intended to sever the employment relationship before relying on abandonment as a ground for dismissal.
Second, company policies are not immune from judicial scrutiny. Even where an employer faithfully applies its own disciplinary rules, the court may still determine whether the penalty imposed is fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the misconduct committed. Thus, company policies should be periodically reviewed to ensure that they remain consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.
Third, employers should never disregard procedural due process. Even where an employee has stopped reporting for work or appears unwilling to participate in the disciplinary process, compliance with the twin-notice rule remains indispensable. Failure to observe the procedural requirements prescribed by the Labor Code may still expose the employer to liability notwithstanding the existence of valid grounds for dismissal.
As a matter or prudence, in cases of AWOL, employers should ensure that notices are sent to the employee’s last known address through a verifiable means of service, while retaining proof of mailing or delivery. If the employee fails to respond within the period provided, the employer should document such fact and proceed to evaluate the case based on the available evidence before issuing the final notice of termination.
What Employees Should Know
Employees, on the other hand, should not read Carpio as a license to disregard policies on attendance. Unauthorized absences remain a legitimate ground for disciplinary action, and an employee who violates company rules should not assume that a subsequent finding of illegal dismissal will automatically entitle him to every monetary benefit available under the law. As Carpio demonstrated, the relief ultimate granted depends upon the particular facts and equities of each case. Whenever circumstances prevent an employee from reporting for work, reasonable efforts should be made to immediately notify the employer and preserve any documentation supporting the absence.
At the same time, employees who are prevented from returning to work despite their intention to continue their employment should seek legal advice without unnecessary delay. Whether an employee has been validly dismissed often depends upon facts that are not immediately apparent.
Final Word
Cases involving AWOL, abandonment, and illegal dismissal are rarely as straightforward as they first appear. A dismissal that seems justified under a company’s handbook may nevertheless be declared illegal if the surrounding circumstances, the penalty imposed, or the disciplinary process fail to comply with the requirements of law. Conversely, employees should not assume that unauthorized absences carry no consequences simply because abandonment cannot be established.
Whether reviewing company policies, conducting disciplinary proceedings, or evaluating the legality of a termination, obtaining legal advice before important decisions are made is often more effective, and significantly less costly, then defending litigation after the fact.
Kristoffer Monico S. Ng is a Philippine lawyer whose practice focuses on labor and employment, corporate and commercial law, tax, energy law, and civil and criminal litigation. He advises businesses and individuals on legal risk, regulatory compliance, taxation, dispute resolution, and complex commercial matters, representing clients before courts, quasi-judicial agencies, and administrative bodies, while also providing strategic legal advice outside the courtroom. He also regularly writes on developments in Philippine jurisprudence and regulation, providing practical insights on legal issues affecting businesses and individuals.
If you require legal advice concerning the issues discussed in this article, or any other legal matter within these practice areas, you may reach him through e-mail at nico@nlaw.ph to discuss your particular circumstances.