‘AWOL’

Dear Louise,

Mere absence from work, even if unauthorized, does not by itself constitute abandonment of employment. In Carpio v Green Era Biotech Corp., et al., G.R. No. 267217, 19 November 2025, the Supreme Court explained that two elements must be established before an employee may be considered to have abandoned his or her employment: first, the employee failed to report for work or was absent without a valid or justifiable reason; and second, the employee clearly intended to sever the employer-employee relationship. The second element is considered the more important factor. Thus, an employer must show some overt act demonstrating that the employee deliberately intended to discontinue his or her employment.

As the Supreme Court held:

“To be sure, 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.”

Accordingly, the fact that an employee was absent for several days, even without proper authorization, does not automatically mean that he or she intended to abandon the job. There must be clear evidence showing an intention not to return to work. For instance, an employee's attempt to return to work may negate an allegation of abandonment. Similarly, the prompt filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal may demonstrate that the employee did not intend to sever the employment relationship.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that unauthorized absences are without consequences. An employer may still impose appropriate disciplinary measures for violations of reasonable company policies, subject to the requirements of substantive and procedural due process. Whether dismissal is warranted will depend on the circumstances of each case and whether a valid ground for termination under the Labor Code has been sufficiently established.

Hope this helps.

Atty. Mary Antonnette M. Baudi