Missing Work Isn't the Same as Abandoning Your Job, According to the Supreme Court

(SPOT.ph) Missing work can get you in trouble, but that doesn't automatically mean you abandoned your job. That was the reminder from the Supreme Court (SC), which said an employee’s absence from work, by itself, is not enough to justify dismissal.

This 18-page decision issued in November 2025 involved a biotech company and the agency that supplied its workers. Both were found guilty of illegally dismissing their utility worker, who had consecutive weeks of absences without filing for leave. The worker said he was sick when he was absent for eight consecutive days from April 27 to May 3, 2018, but he did not inform his employer in advance about his absence. 

Consequently, his employer warned him that he would receive an Absence Without Leave (AWOL) notice if he repeated the violation. As per company policy, at least five days of unauthorized absences could lead to dismissal.

The worker later missed work again from May 11 to 19, 2018. He was eventually barred from returning to work, prompting him to file an illegal dismissal complaint.

Also read: Supreme Court: Hostile Workplaces Leading to Forced Resignations are Illegal

According to the SC’s decision, an employee’s abandonment or deliberate refusal to work would require two elements. First, the worker failed to report for work without a valid or justifiable reason, and second, the worker intended to end the employer-employee relationship.

“Absence 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 SC said in the ruling.

In a dissenting opinion, SC Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao said the dismissal was justified, noting that the worker failed to submit medical certificates or other documents to prove his illness.

However, in the same decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the second element is more important and should be proven through the employee’s actions: “Logically, an employee who truly intended to abandon his or her work would not immediately take steps to challenge the termination.”

The SC said employers must give the employee two written notices before termination. The first should explain the specific reason for possible dismissal and the facts behind it, while the second should state the final decision to terminate, along with the employer’s basis for doing so.

Additionally, the SC noted in a previous case that a hearing or conference must be held between the two notices, giving the employee a chance to respond with a lawyer or representative, if needed. In this case, the worker was asked to explain his absences, but the SC found he was not given enough time or means to review the accusations and prepare his defense.

Overall, the SC ordered the companies to allow the employee to return since he acted “in good faith on the basis of the company policies.” If reinstatement is not possible, the companies must award him his separation pay—which is equivalent to one month of pay for every year of service.

The companies must also pay him P30,000 in nominal damages, plus 6% legal interest per year from the finality of the decision until fully paid.

Also read: Supreme Court: Companies Can’t Take Back Job Offers Without a Good Reason