An employee’s absence from work is not enough to prove job abandonment or justify immediate dismissal, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the high court’s Third Division found Green Era Biotech Corp. and Great Value Management and Services Corp. guilty of illegally dismissing production utility worker Alvin G. Carpio.

The ruling, dated 19 November 2025, and released recently, reversed previous findings by the labor arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals, which had all dismissed Carpio’s complaint.

Carpio was originally hired by Green Era Biotech before being transferred to its manpower provider, Great Value. The dispute began after Carpio missed eight consecutive days of work due to an illness.

Great Value issued a notice to explain, citing a company policy stating that employees with at least five days of unexplained absences could be terminated.

After a second instance where Carpio was absent for nine consecutive days, the company issued an absence without leave, or AWOL, notice, classifying his absences as serious misconduct and job abandonment.

Carpio testified that after later taking an approved leave, he was barred from entering the workplace and informed by his foreman that he had been terminated.

The SC reiterated that proving job abandonment requires employers to establish two elements — that the employee was absent without a valid reason, and that the employee held a clear intent to sever the employment relationship.

SC stressed that the second element is more critical and must be demonstrated through the employee’s overt actions. Because abandonment is a valid ground for dismissal, the burden of proof rests entirely on the employer.

“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 SC stated, adding that mere failure to report to work is not tantamount to walking away from a job.

The justices found that while Carpio’s absences were unauthorized, his actions — such as attempting to return to work and immediately filing an illegal dismissal complaint — proved he had no intention of abandoning his livelihood.

It also ruled that Great Value’s internal policy of firing workers for five unexplained absences could not justify the termination because the penalty was disproportionate to the infraction.