Subject: Legal Inquiry Regarding Employee Absence Without Official Leave

---

Letter to Attorney

Dear Attorney,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to seek your professional legal advice concerning an employment-related matter that has recently arisen in our organization. The issue at hand involves an employee who has been absent from work without an official leave of absence, though the employee informed a fellow colleague about their intention to be absent.

While the employee did provide notice to a co-worker, they failed to notify the appropriate management or follow the company’s established procedures for requesting leave. This situation raises concerns regarding potential violations of company policy and the implications under Philippine labor law.

I would appreciate your guidance on how to address this issue appropriately and in compliance with the law. Specifically, I am seeking clarification on the legal grounds surrounding absenteeism without official leave, as well as potential steps our company can take to handle the matter both fairly and lawfully.

Your expertise on this matter is greatly valued.

Best regards,
A Concerned Employer

---

Legal Article on Employee Absence Without Official Leave in the Philippines

Employee Absenteeism Without Official Leave in the Philippine Context: Legal Considerations and Employer Remedies

Introduction

Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) is a significant concern in Philippine employment law and practice. This situation arises when an employee fails to report for work without obtaining the required approval or providing valid reasons for their absence. AWOL can disrupt operations, lead to productivity losses, and result in administrative challenges for employers. The primary issue in cases of AWOL is the employer's legal right to impose disciplinary measures while safeguarding the employee's rights under the labor laws of the Philippines.

In the Philippines, labor laws are governed by the Labor Code of the Philippines, and the principles of fairness, due process, and good faith are deeply enshrined in Philippine jurisprudence. It is essential for employers to handle cases of AWOL with precision to avoid legal repercussions, including potential labor disputes.

Legal Basis for Employee Discipline on AWOL

A. Employment Contracts and Company Policies

The first line of defense for employers dealing with absenteeism is the employment contract. An employment contract typically outlines the employee's duties and responsibilities, including provisions related to absences and leave requests. Employers generally establish policies regarding leave entitlements, the process for filing leave applications, and disciplinary actions for non-compliance.

It is standard practice for company handbooks to define “authorized” and “unauthorized” absences. The procedures an employee must follow when requesting leave — such as submitting formal applications, obtaining approvals from supervisors, and providing justifications for absences — must be clear and reasonable. If an employee violates these policies by being absent without official leave, the company may impose sanctions. These sanctions, however, must be within the bounds of the Labor Code.

B. Labor Code of the Philippines and AWOL

Under the Labor Code of the Philippines, particularly Book VI, Title I, on Termination of Employment, an employer may discipline or terminate employees based on just and authorized causes. One of the just causes for termination is "willful disobedience" of the lawful orders of the employer concerning work. Absence without official leave, especially when repeated, may be deemed as willful disobedience, neglect of duty, or abandonment of work, provided that the employer can establish intent and due process has been observed.

However, the concept of AWOL must be distinguished from mere negligence or occasional unexcused absences. Under Philippine labor law, an employee's absence does not automatically constitute abandonment unless it is shown that the employee deliberately intends to sever the employment relationship.

Rights and Responsibilities of Employers

A. Due Process and the Two-Notice Rule

The cornerstone of labor discipline in the Philippines is the observance of due process. Even if an employee is in clear violation of company policy for being absent without leave, due process requires that the employer provide the employee with:

1. First Notice (Notice to Explain or Show-Cause Memo): The employer must issue a written notice requiring the employee to explain why they should not be disciplined for their absence. This notice must clearly specify the alleged violation, including the dates of the unauthorized absences, and give the employee an opportunity to respond. The employee is generally given five calendar days to submit a written explanation.

2. Second Notice (Notice of Decision): Once the employee submits their explanation (or fails to do so within the specified period), the employer must evaluate the circumstances and decide whether disciplinary action is warranted. The second notice must communicate the employer’s decision, specifying the sanctions, if any, and explaining the basis for the decision.

The employer is expected to conduct an impartial investigation before rendering a decision. If the employee’s absence is proven to be unauthorized, disciplinary measures can range from reprimands to suspensions or, in extreme cases, termination.

Failure to follow the two-notice rule could render any disciplinary action null and void, exposing the employer to claims of illegal dismissal or unfair labor practices.

B. Proportionality of Penalties

Philippine labor law requires that penalties for AWOL or unauthorized absences must be commensurate with the severity of the violation. For instance, an isolated incident of AWOL might merit a written warning, while repeated occurrences could lead to suspension or termination, depending on the frequency and impact on operations. Employers should exercise caution in meting out penalties, as excessive punishment might lead to labor disputes.

In cases where an employee merely informs a colleague of their absence but fails to follow the official channels for leave, the company may consider whether the employee’s actions reflect a genuine mistake or a deliberate refusal to comply with policy. Employers must also factor in the employee's overall work record, tenure, and previous infractions when determining penalties.

Employee Abandonment vs. AWOL

One key issue that arises in AWOL cases is whether the employee’s actions constitute abandonment of work. Abandonment, as a ground for termination, involves two elements:

1. The failure of the employee to report for work for a prolonged and unjustified period.
2. Clear intent to sever the employer-employee relationship.

Philippine jurisprudence consistently holds that mere absence, even if prolonged, does not automatically constitute abandonment. The employer must establish the employee’s intent to abandon their position, usually through actions that demonstrate an unequivocal refusal to return to work. On the other hand, occasional AWOL without a clear intention to resign typically results in disciplinary action but not termination for abandonment.

Case Law on AWOL and Related Issues

Philippine case law provides ample guidance on AWOL and abandonment cases. In Oceanic Bic Division (FFW) v. Romero, the Supreme Court held that mere absence does not constitute abandonment unless it is shown that the employee intended to sever the employer-employee relationship. The court emphasized that the employer must prove a deliberate intent to resign, as abandonment cannot be presumed from mere absence.

In King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, the Supreme Court ruled that the employer must follow the two-notice rule in imposing penalties for AWOL. In this case, the court found that the employee’s absence did not constitute abandonment but warranted disciplinary measures due to the failure to notify the employer properly.

Remedies for Employers

In dealing with AWOL cases, employers are advised to adopt a measured approach. Here are some practical remedies:

1. Strict Implementation of Policies: Employers should ensure that attendance and leave policies are clearly communicated and consistently enforced. This includes educating employees on the consequences of unauthorized absences and emphasizing the importance of following official procedures for leave requests.

2. Progressive Discipline: Employers should consider progressive discipline, starting with verbal or written warnings for first-time offenders and escalating to suspension or termination for repeated violations.

3. Grace Periods and Compassionate Leave: In certain circumstances, employers may wish to offer grace periods or compassionate leave for employees facing personal or family emergencies. This demonstrates good faith and reduces the likelihood of employees going AWOL due to unforeseen events.

4. Documenting Incidents: Employers must maintain meticulous records of all AWOL incidents, including the dates of absences, the employee’s explanations (or lack thereof), and the company’s response. Proper documentation strengthens the employer’s position in the event of a labor dispute.

Conclusion

AWOL is a serious employment issue that can disrupt workplace efficiency and lead to significant legal complications if not handled properly. Philippine labor law provides employers with the right to impose sanctions for unauthorized absences, but this right is tempered by the employee’s right to due process and fair treatment. By adhering to the principles of the Labor Code and relevant jurisprudence, employers can effectively manage AWOL cases while minimizing the risk of labor disputes.

Employers are encouraged to follow the two-notice rule, enforce reasonable penalties, and document all incidents of absenteeism thoroughly. With a balanced approach, it is possible to address absenteeism without violating the employee’s rights or inviting unnecessary litigation.