Unjust Dismissal: Why Consistent Company Policy & Due Process are Crucial in AWOL Cases

TLDR: This landmark case clarifies that employers cannot arbitrarily dismiss employees for absences without permission (AWOL) without strictly adhering to company policies, providing due process, and consistently applying disciplinary measures. Inconsistencies in enforcing rules and accepting medical certificates can lead to a finding of illegal dismissal, even for repeated absences.

G.R. No. 126688, March 05, 1998: DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PROCESA ALSOLA

Introduction

Imagine losing your job after 22 years of service due to absences, even when you’ve provided medical proof and your employer previously accepted similar justifications. This was the reality for Prosesa Alsola, a packer at Del Monte Philippines, Inc. Her case highlights a critical aspect of Philippine labor law: the importance of due process and consistent application of company rules, especially concerning absences and disciplinary actions. This case serves as a stark reminder that employers must not only have a valid reason to dismiss an employee but must also follow fair procedures, and inconsistencies in past practices can significantly weaken their case in labor disputes. The central legal question in this case was whether Del Monte Philippines, Inc. illegally dismissed Alsola for her repeated absences without permission, despite her submission of medical certificates.

Legal Context: Absence Without Leave (AWOL), Due Process, and Abandonment

Philippine labor law recognizes an employer’s right to discipline employees for just causes, including habitual neglect of duty. Absence Without Leave (AWOL), or Absence Without Permission as termed in Del Monte’s company rules, can fall under this category if it’s proven to be gross and habitual. However, the law also strongly protects employees’ security of tenure, meaning dismissal must be for a valid cause and must follow due process. This protection is enshrined in Article 294 (formerly Article 279) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which states that no employee can be dismissed except for just or authorized cause and after due process.

Due process has two aspects: substantive and procedural. Substantive due process means there must be a valid and just cause for termination, such as gross and habitual neglect of duties. Procedural due process requires that the employer must follow a fair procedure before dismissal, typically involving notice and an opportunity to be heard. In AWOL cases, procedural due process often involves sending show-cause letters and conducting hearings to allow the employee to explain their absences.

Another related concept is abandonment of work, which the employer in this case also raised. Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume employment. For abandonment to be a valid ground for dismissal, the Supreme Court has consistently held that two elements must be present: (1) the intention to abandon employment and (2) an overt act carrying out that intention. The burden of proving abandonment rests with the employer, and the intent to abandon cannot be lightly inferred.

Relevant jurisprudence emphasizes that the employer carries the burden of proving just cause for dismissal. As the Supreme Court reiterated in this case, citing previous decisions like Raycor Aircontrol Systems vs. NLRC and Uy vs. NLRC, “In illegal dismissal cases, the onus is on the employer to prove that there was valid cause for its action.” This principle underscores the employee’s constitutionally protected right to security of tenure.

Case Breakdown: Alsola vs. Del Monte – A Timeline of Absences and Dismissal

Procesa Alsola had been a packer at Del Monte Philippines since 1972, with an unblemished 22-year record. Del Monte had a strict AWOP policy requiring employees to secure leave approvals before being absent. The company alleged Alsola accumulated 57 AWOP days between 1993 and 1994 and sent 17 show-cause letters. However, the NLRC found that only two show-cause letters were verifiably received by Alsola.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

1. 1972-1992: Prosesa Alsola works at Del Monte with a clean record.
2. 1993-1994: Alsola incurs absences, which Del Monte labels as AWOP. Del Monte claims to have sent 17 show-cause letters.
3. June 30, 1993 & January 6, 1994: Del Monte verifiably sends two show-cause letters to Alsola regarding absences from June 10-30, 1993, and November 5, 1993 to January 6, 1994.
4. Alsola’s Response: For both show-cause letters, Alsola submits medical certificates from her doctor, explaining her absences were due to worsening arthritis.
5. Del Monte’s Stance: Del Monte rejects the medical certificates because they are from non-company accredited doctors and terminates Alsola on March 10, 1994, for AWOL.
6. Labor Arbiter’s Decision: Initially, the Labor Arbiter sides with Del Monte, deeming the dismissal valid due to gross and habitual neglect of duty.
7. NLRC Reversal: The NLRC reverses the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding the dismissal illegal. The NLRC highlighted that only two show-cause letters were proven to be received and that Alsola’s absences were medically justified. Reinstatement was deemed not feasible due to Alsola’s health, so separation pay and backwages were awarded.
8. Supreme Court Affirmation: Del Monte petitions the Supreme Court, but the Court affirms the NLRC’s decision, emphasizing the lack of proof for most show-cause letters and the inconsistency in Del Monte’s handling of Alsola’s medical certificates.

The Supreme Court highlighted critical flaws in Del Monte’s case. Firstly, the company failed to convincingly prove that Alsola received 15 out of the 17 show-cause letters, making those alleged AWOL instances unsubstantiated. Secondly, the Court pointed out Del Monte’s inconsistent acceptance of medical certificates. Justice Puno, writing for the Court, stated:

“Secondly, it appears that petitioner excused private respondent’s alleged past absences as she has been allowed to report back to work without any sanction from petitioner. Neither did petitioner require that the medical certificates she submitted be confirmed by its physicians. From the viewpoint of private respondent, everything was in order… This is a complete turn-around for heretofore, private respondent’s medical certificates from her personal physician to justify her AWOP had been accepted by petitioner.”

Regarding Del Monte’s claim of abandonment, the Court found no evidence of Alsola’s intent to abandon her job. Her long years of service, clean record, and the act of filing an illegal dismissal case all contradicted the abandonment claim. The Court concluded:

“To be sure, there is absolutely nothing in the records proving any intention on the part of private respondent to abandon her job… Finally, her filing of an illegal dismissal case contradicts petitioner’s allegation that she abandoned her job.”

Practical Implications: Lessons for Employers and Employees

This case provides crucial lessons for both employers and employees regarding AWOL policies and disciplinary actions. For employers, it underscores the importance of:

• Consistent Policy Enforcement: Company rules, especially regarding absences and medical certificates, must be applied consistently across all employees. Past practices of accepting certain documents or excusing absences can create precedents that undermine later disciplinary actions.
• Proper Documentation and Due Process: Employers must meticulously document all disciplinary actions, including show-cause letters and notices of hearing, and ensure proof of receipt by the employee. Procedural due process, including a fair hearing, is non-negotiable in dismissal cases.
• Clarity in Communication: Communicate clearly with employees about company policies and any changes in enforcement. If medical certificates from private doctors will no longer be accepted, this must be clearly communicated beforehand.
• Progressive Discipline: Consider a progressive disciplinary approach, especially for long-term employees with good records. Jumping directly to dismissal for AWOL, without prior warnings or suspensions, can be viewed as arbitrary.

For employees, this case highlights the need to:

• Understand Company Policies: Be fully aware of company rules regarding absences, leave applications, and medical certificate requirements.
• Respond to Show-Cause Letters: Take show-cause letters seriously and respond promptly and thoroughly, providing all necessary documentation and explanations.
• Document Everything: Keep copies of all documents submitted to the employer, including medical certificates and responses to show-cause letters.
• Seek Legal Advice: If facing potential dismissal or if dismissed, seek legal advice from a labor lawyer to understand your rights and options.

Key Lessons from Del Monte Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC:

• Inconsistency Kills Dismissal Cases: Inconsistent application of company policy is a major weakness for employers in illegal dismissal cases.
• Burden of Proof on Employer: The employer always bears the burden of proving just cause and due process in dismissal cases.
• Substantial Evidence Required: Allegations must be supported by substantial evidence, not just claims. This includes proof of sending and receiving show-cause letters.
• Long Service Matters: An employee’s long and unblemished service record is a significant factor considered by labor courts and the Supreme Court.
• Medical Justification Can Excuse Absences: Medical reasons, when properly documented, can justify absences and negate claims of AWOL or abandonment.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about AWOL and Illegal Dismissal

Q1: What is considered Absence Without Leave (AWOL) in the Philippines?

A: AWOL generally refers to absences from work without prior permission or notification to the employer, violating company policies regarding leave application and approval.

Q2: Can an employer immediately dismiss an employee for AWOL?

A: Not usually. While AWOL can be a ground for dismissal, employers must follow due process, including issuing show-cause letters and conducting hearings. The dismissal must also be for a just cause, meaning the AWOL is considered gross and habitual neglect of duty.

Q3: Are medical certificates from private doctors valid justification for absences?

A: It depends on company policy and past practice. If the company consistently accepted medical certificates from private doctors in the past, they cannot suddenly reject them without prior notice and a clear change in policy. Some companies require medical certificates from company-accredited physicians.

Q4: What is procedural due process in termination cases?

A: Procedural due process typically involves two notices: a notice of intent to dismiss (show-cause letter) stating the grounds for dismissal and giving the employee an opportunity to explain, and a notice of termination if the explanation is deemed unsatisfactory. A hearing or conference is also usually required.

Q5: What is abandonment of work, and how is it proven?

A: Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal to return to work. To prove abandonment, employers must show (1) the employee’s intention to abandon and (2) an overt act demonstrating that intention. Mere absence is not enough to prove abandonment.

Q6: What can an employee do if they believe they were illegally dismissed for AWOL?

A: File a case for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). It’s crucial to gather evidence, including employment records, show-cause letters, responses, and any proof of inconsistent company practices.

Q7: What remedies are available to an employee who is illegally dismissed?

A: Remedies include reinstatement to the former position, backwages (payment of salaries from the time of dismissal until reinstatement), and separation pay if reinstatement is no longer feasible.

ASG Law specializes in Labor Law and Employment Disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.