An employee's absence from work alone is not enough to establish abandonment or justify dismissal, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled.

In a decision dated 19 November 2025 and written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC's Third Division found Green Era Biotech Corp. and Great Value Management and Services Corp. liable for illegally dismissing production utility worker Alvin G. Carpio.

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

He was first absent from work for eight consecutive days due to illness, prompting Great Value to issue a notice requiring him to explain his unauthorized absences, which the company said violated its policy.

Under the policy, employees with at least five days of unexplained absences may be dismissed.

Carpio later incurred another nine consecutive days of absence, after which the company issued him an absence without leave (AWOL) notice, citing serious misconduct and abandonment of work as grounds for dismissal.

He later took another leave with his supervisor's permission but was barred from entering the workplace when he returned. His foreman subsequently informed him that he had been declared AWOL.

Carpio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, but the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the Court of Appeals all ruled against him.

The Supreme Court reversed those rulings.

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 the more important requirement.

Because abandonment is a just cause for dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proving both elements, the Court said.

While Carpio's absences were unauthorized, the SC found no evidence that he intended to abandon his job. Instead, he attempted to return to work and promptly challenged his dismissal before the labor tribunal.

The Court emphasized that "absence from work, in itself, cannot generate a finding of abandonment" without any overt act clearly showing the employee's intention to end the employment relationship.

It also ruled that Great Value's policy imposing dismissal for at least five days of unexplained absences was disproportionate to the offense and could not justify Carpio's termination.

The SC ordered Carpio's reinstatement but denied his claim for backwages, finding that the company 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 dissent, Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao argued that Carpio's dismissal was valid, saying the employee committed willful disobedience and serious misconduct by repeatedly violating company policy. He also noted that Carpio failed to present medical certificates to support his claim of illness.