When is Absence Not Abandonment? Reinstatement and Backwages Explained

TLDR: In the Philippines, being absent from work without permission isn’t automatically considered job abandonment. This Supreme Court case clarifies that employers must prove an employee *intended* to quit their job, not just that they were absent. If an employee is dismissed for abandonment without this proof, it can be deemed illegal dismissal, entitling them to reinstatement and backwages, even if a suspension is warranted for the unauthorized absences.

G.R. No. 119724, May 31, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine losing your job because of personal problems that caused you to miss work. This is the reality for many Filipino workers, where the line between unauthorized absence and job abandonment can be blurry. The Supreme Court case of Metro Transit Organization, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Victorio T. Turing (G.R. No. 119724, May 31, 1999) provides crucial insights into this issue. Victorio Turing, a train operator, was dismissed for job abandonment after being absent due to domestic issues. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether Turing’s absence constituted abandonment, justifying his dismissal, or if it was illegal dismissal, warranting reinstatement and backwages.

LEGAL CONTEXT: ABANDONMENT AS JUST CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL

Philippine labor law protects employees from unfair dismissal. Under Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, an employer can only terminate an employee for just causes or authorized causes. One of the just causes for termination is ‘abandonment of work.’

However, abandonment isn’t simply about being absent. The Supreme Court has consistently held that for abandonment to be a valid ground for dismissal, two key elements must be present:

1. Failure to Report for Work: The employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent for a considerable period.
2. Clear Intent to Abandon: There must be a clear and deliberate intent on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship. This intent is the crucial factor.

As the Supreme Court has emphasized in numerous cases, including this one, the burden of proof lies with the employer to demonstrate unequivocally that the employee intended to abandon their job. Mere absence, even if unauthorized, is not sufficient to constitute abandonment. There must be ‘overt acts’ clearly showing the employee’s intention not to return to work.

The principle of security of tenure is paramount in Philippine labor law. This means that employees cannot be dismissed without just or authorized cause and due process. Dismissal is considered the ultimate penalty, and employers must ensure they have solid legal grounds before terminating an employee’s services.

CASE BREAKDOWN: TURING’S ABSENCE AND METRO TRANSIT’S RESPONSE

Victorio Turing, a train operator for Metro Transit Organization (MTO), had a history of absences. He was previously suspended for ten days of unauthorized absences in December 1989. In February 1990, he applied for and was granted a three-day leave. However, after his leave expired, Turing did not return to work immediately. He was absent from February 17 to March 13, 1990.

During this period, MTO’s social worker visited Turing’s home and learned he was in Calamba, Laguna. However, on March 6, Turing informed MTO that he would return to work on March 15. He actually returned on March 12, explaining that he had domestic problems – his wife had left him and their six children. Despite his explanation and return to work, MTO dismissed Turing on March 29, 1990, for abandonment of work, citing 17 days of unauthorized absence.

Turing filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, finding the dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages. MTO appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. MTO then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari, arguing that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion.

The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Mendoza, upheld the NLRC’s ruling, albeit with a modification. The Court emphasized the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, which are generally given great weight and finality when supported by substantial evidence. The Court quoted the Labor Arbiter’s observation that Turing’s personal problems were serious enough to affect his concentration, and that his plea for understanding should have been considered. The NLRC also noted Turing’s communication of his intent to return to work and his actual return on March 12.

Crucially, the Supreme Court highlighted the lack of evidence showing Turing’s intent to abandon his job. The Court stated:

“To be sure, considering the reason for his absence, private respondent cannot be said to have abandoned his work. Indeed, petitioner has adduced no proof of overt acts on the part of private respondent showing clearly and unequivocally his intention to abandon his work. To the contrary, the evidence shows that when the social worker Emma M. Luciano conducted a home visit, private respondent declared his intention to return to work on March 15, 1990. As a matter of fact, he reported for work on March 12. In his letters to petitioner dated March 12 and 13, 1990, he expressed regrets for his absences. Then, after learning that he had been dismissed, private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. All these belie petitioner’s allegation that private respondent had abandoned his job.”

The Court also reiterated the principle that filing a complaint for illegal dismissal shortly after termination negates the idea of abandonment. However, the Supreme Court also recognized that Turing was indeed guilty of absence without leave. Considering his prior suspension for similar absences, the Court modified the NLRC decision. Instead of full backwages from the time of dismissal, the Court ordered a three-month suspension for Turing, effectively from March 29, 1990, to June 26, 1990. He was still entitled to reinstatement and full backwages from June 27, 1990, until actual reinstatement, less the three-month suspension period.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FOR EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES

This case provides valuable lessons for both employers and employees in the Philippines regarding absences and potential dismissal.

For Employers:

• Investigate Intent, Not Just Absence: Do not automatically assume abandonment based solely on an employee’s absence. Investigate the reasons for the absence and look for evidence of the employee’s intent to sever employment.
• Communicate and Document: Make reasonable efforts to contact absent employees and inquire about their situation. Document all communication attempts and the employee’s responses.
• Consider Mitigating Circumstances: Be considerate of employees facing personal hardships. While attendance is important, understanding and compassion can prevent costly illegal dismissal cases.
• Due Process is Crucial: Even if abandonment is suspected, follow proper due process before termination. Issue notices and give the employee a chance to explain.

For Employees:

• Communicate Absences: Inform your employer as soon as possible if you need to be absent, even for personal reasons. Keep communication lines open.
• Document Reasons for Absence: Keep records of any reasons for your absence, especially if due to illness or emergencies. This can be crucial evidence if your dismissal is questioned.
• Return to Work and Explain: If you have been absent, make an effort to return to work and provide a clear explanation for your absence.
• File Illegal Dismissal Cases Promptly: If you believe you have been illegally dismissed for abandonment when you intended to return to work, file a complaint for illegal dismissal without delay. This demonstrates your intention to keep your job.

Key Lessons from Metro Transit vs. NLRC:

• Absence alone is not abandonment. Employers must prove intent to abandon employment.
• Burden of proof is on the employer to show clear intent to abandon.
• Filing an illegal dismissal case negates abandonment. It shows the employee wants to keep their job.
• Personal problems can be mitigating factors in cases of unauthorized absence, although they don’t excuse AWOL entirely.
• Employers can still impose disciplinary actions like suspension for unauthorized absences, even if dismissal for abandonment is not justified.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: What is considered ‘abandonment of work’ in Philippine labor law?
A: Abandonment of work requires two elements: unjustified failure to report to work and a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. Mere absence is not enough; intent to abandon must be proven by the employer.

Q: Can I be dismissed for being absent without leave (AWOL)?
A: While AWOL can be a ground for disciplinary action, including suspension, it is not automatically abandonment. Dismissal for abandonment requires proof of your intent to quit your job. However, habitual or gross AWOL, even without intent to abandon, might be a just cause for dismissal under ‘gross neglect of duty’.

Q: What should I do if I am absent due to a family emergency?
A: Inform your employer as soon as possible, even if it’s after the absence has begun. Document the emergency and provide evidence if possible. Upon returning, explain your situation and express your intention to continue working.

Q: What are backwages and reinstatement?
A: Backwages are the wages an illegally dismissed employee should have earned from the time of dismissal until reinstatement. Reinstatement means restoring the employee to their former position without loss of seniority rights.

Q: If I am found to be illegally dismissed, will I always be reinstated with full backwages?
A: Generally, yes. However, as seen in the Metro Transit case, the Court may order suspension instead of dismissal for the underlying infraction (like AWOL) while still upholding the illegal dismissal ruling due to lack of abandonment. Backwages may be adjusted to account for the suspension period.

Q: How soon should I file an illegal dismissal case?
A: It’s best to file as soon as possible after dismissal. A prompt filing demonstrates your intention to keep your job and strengthens your case against abandonment.

Q: What is the role of the NLRC in illegal dismissal cases?
A: The NLRC (National Labor Relations Commission) is a government agency that hears labor disputes, including illegal dismissal cases, on appeal from the Labor Arbiter level.

Q: What kind of evidence can prove ‘intent to abandon’?
A: Examples could include: applying for a job elsewhere and starting work, moving to another country without informing the employer, or unequivocally stating to the employer that you are resigning and not returning.

Q: Does this case mean employers can never dismiss an employee for absence?
A: No. Employers can dismiss employees for just causes, including gross neglect of duty which can be related to excessive or habitual unauthorized absences. However, for ‘abandonment’, intent to abandon must be proven. Furthermore, employers can impose disciplinary actions like suspensions for unauthorized absences.

Q: Where can I get legal help if I believe I have been illegally dismissed?
A: Consult with a labor law attorney immediately to discuss your situation and legal options.

ASG Law specializes in Labor Law and Employment Disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.