Absence without abandonment

This case involves the dismissal of an employee who was accused of abandoning his job due to excessive absences without prior permission. The main issues revolve around what constitutes “excessive” absence that may be deemed abandonment of work, and whether dismissal is the proper sanction for being absent without authorization.

The employee, Lito, was married to Janelle, and they had a son named Marco. Lito worked as a route helper in a brewing company for nearly two years when he faced a serious family problem – his wife left him and their child. Because Lito had a full-time job, there was no one to look after Marco. Out of necessity, he brought his son to their home province in the Visayas.

He was under severe emotional, psychological and financial stress, making it impossible for him to manage both work and childcare in the city. As a result, Lito was unable to report for work for a month without his employer’s permission.

The company then issued a memo requiring him to explain within 24 hours why he should not be disciplined. Lito immediately replied, explaining that he had to take his son to the province because his wife had abandoned them, and he had no money to make a long-distance call or send a telegram, having spent his savings on medicine and other needs.

The company, however, rejected his explanation, citing its internal rule that an employee absent for six consecutive days without permission is deemed to have abandoned work. Thus, Lito was dismissed 30 days later.

Seven days after receiving the notice of dismissal, Lito filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), arguing that his absence was for a justifiable reason and that dismissal was an excessive penalty. He pointed out that this was his first offense in two years of service and that a suspension would have been more appropriate.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Lito’s complaint, holding that his termination was valid because his prolonged absence clearly constituted abandonment. The company, according to the LA, had the right to dismiss an employee with frequent and unexplained absences.

However, the NLRC reversed the decision, ruling that Lito’s dismissal was invalid. The Commission found that although his absence was unauthorized, it did not amount to abandonment or gross neglect. Considering that Lito was a first-time offender and was forced to deal with a family crisis, dismissal was too harsh. The NLRC ordered Lito’s reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, but without back wages.

The Supreme Court agreed with the NLRC. It held that Lito was not guilty of abandonment of work. Abandonment requires both absence without valid reason and a clear intent to sever the employer-employee relationship. The burden of proof rests on the employer.

Mere absence does not automatically mean abandonment. In this case, Lito promptly explained his absence when asked and immediately filed a complaint upon being dismissed – actions inconsistent with any intent to abandon his job. The Court found that the company acted too hastily in enforcing its rule on unauthorized absences.

Labor laws, guided by the principles of social justice and public interest, must always favor fairness and the protection of workers. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s decision reinstating Lito to his position. (Brew Master International Inc. vs. NLRC and Estrada et al., G.R. No. 119243, April 17, 1997)