ASG Law

Tag: Company Policies

  • Understanding Employee Termination for Unauthorized Absences: Insights from a Landmark Philippine Case

    Key Takeaway: Employers Must Follow Due Process in Terminating Employees for Unauthorized Absences

    Jerry E. Almogera, Jr. v. A & L Fishpond and Hatchery, Inc. and Augusto Tycangco, G.R. No. 247428, February 17, 2021

    Imagine arriving at work one day to find your position filled by someone else, simply because you took time off to attend to a family emergency without following the exact protocol set by your employer. This scenario isn’t far-fetched; it’s a reality that unfolded in the case of Jerry E. Almogera, Jr. against A & L Fishpond and Hatchery, Inc. The case centered around the critical issue of employee termination due to unauthorized absences, raising questions about the balance between an employee’s right to leave and an employer’s right to enforce its policies.

    Jerry Almogera, a harvester at A & L Fishpond, was terminated after taking an 11-day leave to attend a family emergency in Naga. He claimed he had sought permission from his supervisor, but the company argued that he did not follow the required procedure for leave application, resulting in his dismissal. The central legal question was whether Almogera’s termination was lawful, given the circumstances of his absence and the company’s policies.

    Legal Context: Understanding Termination for Cause in the Philippines

    In the Philippines, the Labor Code outlines the grounds for lawful termination of employment, including serious misconduct and willful disobedience. Article 297(a) of the Labor Code states that an employer may terminate an employment for “serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work.”

    Willful disobedience, as a just cause for termination, requires two elements: the employee’s conduct must be willful, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude, and the order violated must be reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and pertain to the duties they are engaged to perform.

    Additionally, procedural due process must be followed, which includes serving the employee with two written notices and providing an opportunity to be heard. The first notice informs the employee of the specific acts or omissions for which their dismissal is sought, while the second notice informs them of the employer’s decision to dismiss them.

    These legal principles are crucial for both employers and employees to understand. For instance, a company might have a policy requiring employees to submit leave forms in advance. If an employee fails to do so and is absent, the employer can enforce the policy, but must ensure that the policy is reasonable and communicated effectively to all employees.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey of Jerry Almogera’s Termination

    Jerry Almogera’s journey began when he verbally requested an 11-day leave from his supervisor, Manuel Cruzada, to attend to a family emergency. Cruzada reportedly approved the request and promised to relay it to higher management. However, upon returning to work, Almogera was served a letter requiring him to explain his unauthorized absences, and he was placed under preventive suspension. He opted not to submit an explanation, leading to his formal termination for violating the company’s Code of Discipline.

    Almogera then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), arguing that his absence was authorized by his supervisor. The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially ruled in his favor, finding that he was illegally dismissed due to the company’s failure to prove that he was aware of the Code of Discipline at the time of employment.

    However, the NLRC reversed the LA’s decision, finding that Almogera was validly dismissed for willful disobedience. The NLRC noted that Almogera did not comply with the company’s leave application process, which required a written form to be submitted at least five days before the leave. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the NLRC’s ruling, emphasizing that Almogera’s failure to follow the company’s policy amounted to willful disobedience.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision, affirmed the CA’s ruling, stating:

    “Undoubtedly, the collective acts of petitioner in disregarding the afore-quoted A & L rules by failing to prepare and submit the appropriate leave application form in absenting himself from work for a prolonged period, failing to comply with the notice to explain, and refusing to appear before the management for a hearing, are clear manifestations of his inclination on disregarding A & L rules and Code of Discipline.”

    The Court also noted:

    “Petitioner’s insistence that his absences were authorized as he had verbally asked permission from his supervisor, as aptly found by the CA, has not been substantiated and is obviously self-serving.”

    The procedural steps followed by A & L Fishpond were:

    1. Issuing a first notice to Almogera, detailing his violation of the company’s Code of Discipline and giving him five days to explain.
    2. Scheduling a hearing to give him another opportunity to explain, which he did not attend.
    3. Issuing a second notice, informing him of his termination for violating the Code of Discipline.

    Practical Implications: Navigating Employee Termination and Leave Policies

    This ruling underscores the importance of clear communication and adherence to company policies regarding leave applications. Employers must ensure that their policies are reasonable, lawful, and well-communicated to all employees. Employees, on the other hand, must understand the importance of following these policies, even in urgent situations.

    For businesses, this case serves as a reminder to:

    • Regularly review and update their policies to ensure they are fair and reasonable.
    • Ensure that all employees are aware of these policies and the consequences of non-compliance.
    • Follow due process meticulously when considering termination, including providing proper notices and opportunities for employees to explain their actions.

    Key Lessons:

    • Employees should always follow the proper procedures for requesting leave, even in emergencies, to avoid potential disciplinary action.
    • Employers must balance the enforcement of policies with the understanding of employees’ personal circumstances.
    • Both parties should maintain open communication to prevent misunderstandings that could lead to legal disputes.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What constitutes willful disobedience in the workplace?
    Willful disobedience occurs when an employee intentionally disregards a lawful and reasonable order from their employer, related to their duties, with a wrongful and perverse attitude.

    Can an employer terminate an employee for unauthorized absences?
    Yes, if the absence violates a company policy that is reasonable, lawful, and communicated to the employee, and if the employer follows due process in the termination.

    What is the process for terminating an employee for cause?
    The process involves serving the employee with a first notice detailing the violation, providing an opportunity for the employee to explain, and then serving a second notice of termination if the explanation is unsatisfactory or not provided.

    How can employees protect themselves from wrongful termination?
    Employees should familiarize themselves with their company’s policies, follow proper procedures for leave requests, and document any communications with their employer regarding leave or other issues.

    What should employers do to ensure fair termination practices?
    Employers should ensure their policies are clear, communicated effectively, and applied consistently. They must also follow due process meticulously to avoid legal challenges.

    Can verbal permission from a supervisor suffice for leave?
    It depends on the company’s policy. If the policy requires a written request, verbal permission may not be sufficient to avoid disciplinary action.

    What are the consequences of not following a company’s leave policy?
    Failure to follow a company’s leave policy can lead to disciplinary actions, including termination, if the policy is reasonable, lawful, and communicated to the employee.

    ASG Law specializes in labor and employment law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • When Absence Isn’t Always Golden: Upholding Dismissal for Unauthorized Absences Under Philippine Labor Law

    In the Philippines, an employee’s unauthorized absences can be grounds for dismissal, as affirmed in this Supreme Court case. The Court upheld the dismissal of an employee due to a pattern of unauthorized absences, emphasizing the importance of adhering to company policies and providing credible proof for absences. The decision underscores that employers have the right to terminate employees who habitually neglect their duties, especially when prior warnings have been issued. This ruling reinforces the significance of punctuality and attendance in maintaining a productive work environment, while also setting a clear standard for what constitutes a valid excuse for absences.

    Unexcused: When a Medical Certificate Doesn’t Excuse Job Abandonment

    Virgel Dave Japos, a gardener at First Agrarian Reform Multi-Purpose Cooperative (FARMCOOP), faced termination due to repeated absences. FARMCOOP’s policies required employees to obtain prior authorization for absences. Japos had a history of unexcused absences, leading to written warnings. The critical point arose when Japos was absent for several days, claiming illness, but the medical certificate he provided was deemed insufficient to justify his absence. This case explores whether FARMCOOP had just cause to dismiss Japos, focusing on the validity of the medical certificate and the application of FARMCOOP’s absence policies. The central legal question is whether the provided medical certificate adequately excused Japos’ absences, thereby invalidating his dismissal.

    The case hinged on whether Japos’ absences from June 22 to July 5, 2005, were authorized or excusable. FARMCOOP argued that Japos’ absences were unauthorized and that the medical certificate he submitted was inadequate. Prior to these absences, Japos had already incurred multiple unauthorized absences, resulting in written warnings. According to FARMCOOP’s Personnel Policies and Procedures, unauthorized absences could lead to disciplinary action, including suspension or dismissal, depending on the number of infractions. The cooperative emphasized that Japos had been leniently treated in the past, receiving warnings instead of suspensions for his earlier absences.

    Japos contended that his absences were due to illness, supported by a medical certificate from Dr. Carolyn R. Cruz. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) found the medical certificate to be insufficient, as it did not specify the period during which Japos was ill or under treatment. The CA cited Filflex Industrial & Manufacturing Corp. vs. NLRC, emphasizing that a medical certificate must refer to the specific period of absence to be considered valid proof. This requirement ensures that employers can verify the legitimacy of the employee’s reason for being absent.

    Article 282(b) of the Labor Code allows for the termination of employment due to gross and habitual neglect of duty. The CA noted that habitual absenteeism without leave violates company rules and regulations, justifying termination. Quoting R.B. Michael Press vs. Galit, the CA stated that habitual tardiness and absenteeism reflect an employee’s attitude towards work and negatively impact productivity. Japos failed to refute his habitual absenteeism, and his belatedly submitted medical certificate did not help his case due to its lack of specificity. The Supreme Court agreed with the CA’s assessment, emphasizing that Japos’ past and present absences could be considered collectively as grounds for dismissal.

    The Supreme Court delved into the reliability of Dr. Cruz’s medical certificate, pointing out its lack of specific details. The certificate did not indicate when Japos was examined, diagnosed, or treated, making it impossible to confirm that his illness coincided with his absences from June 22 to July 5, 2005. The Court stated:

    The certificate does not indicate the period during which petitioner was taken ill. It does not show when he consulted with and was diagnosed by Dr. Cruz. And it does not specify when and how petitioner underwent treatment, and for how long. Without these relevant pieces of information, it cannot be reliably concluded that indeed, petitioner was taken ill on June 22-28, 2005.

    The Court further noted that the certificate’s lack of detail bordered on prevarication and forgery, undermining its credibility. The Court emphasized that evidence must be credible in itself, aligning with knowledge, observation, and experience. In this context, the medical certificate failed to meet the standard of reliable evidence. The Court also pointed out that Japos did not return to work immediately after his claimed illness subsided, further weakening his case. Even after receiving notice to explain his absence, he delayed his return, indicating a lack of concern for his job.

    The Supreme Court highlighted that Japos had been given ample opportunity to explain his absences. FARMCOOP had sent him an inter-office memorandum asking for a written explanation, which he provided. However, FARMCOOP found his explanation implausible and unsubstantiated. The Court reiterated that due process requires only an opportunity to be heard, not necessarily a formal hearing. FARMCOOP’s actions satisfied the due process requirement, as Japos was given the chance to defend himself, and his termination was based on valid grounds. The Supreme Court noted that, while FARMCOOP opted not to penalize Japos with suspension for his earlier infractions, these prior absences could still be considered when assessing his overall conduct. FARMCOOP’s leniency, motivated by respect for Japos’ father, did not negate the validity of the dismissal based on the cumulative effect of his unauthorized absences.

    The Court ultimately ruled that Japos’ dismissal was for just cause and with due process. The inadequate medical certificate, coupled with his history of unauthorized absences, justified FARMCOOP’s decision to terminate his employment. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of employees adhering to company policies and providing credible evidence for absences. This decision serves as a reminder that employers have the right to enforce their attendance policies and that employees must take responsibility for their conduct to maintain their employment.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether Virgel Dave Japos’ dismissal was legal, focusing on whether his unauthorized absences constituted just cause for termination under Philippine labor law. The court examined the validity of his medical certificate and the consistency of FARMCOOP’s application of its attendance policies.
    What was FARMCOOP’s policy on absences? FARMCOOP required employees to obtain prior authorization for absences, with unauthorized absences leading to disciplinary actions, including written warnings, suspensions, or dismissal, depending on the number and duration of the absences. The policy distinguished between unauthorized leave of absence (AWOL) and absence without permission (AWOP), each with corresponding penalties.
    Why was the medical certificate deemed insufficient? The medical certificate provided by Japos was deemed insufficient because it did not specify the period during which he was ill or under treatment. It lacked crucial details that would have linked his illness to the specific dates of his absences, making it unreliable as proof of justification.
    What is ‘gross and habitual neglect of duty’ under the Labor Code? Under Article 282(b) of the Labor Code, ‘gross and habitual neglect of duty’ refers to an employee’s consistent failure to perform their job responsibilities, which can be grounds for termination. This includes repeated unauthorized absences and tardiness, which disrupt the employer’s operations.
    What due process requirements must an employer follow when terminating an employee? Employers must provide two written notices to the employee: the first informing them of the specific acts or omissions for which their dismissal is sought, and the second informing them of the decision to dismiss after the employee has had an opportunity to be heard and defend themselves. This ensures fairness and transparency in the termination process.
    Did FARMCOOP follow due process in Japos’ dismissal? Yes, the court found that FARMCOOP complied with due process requirements by sending Japos an inter-office memorandum asking for a written explanation for his absences and subsequently informing him of his termination. Japos was given an opportunity to be heard, satisfying the due process requirement.
    Can past infractions be considered in an employee’s dismissal? Yes, previous infractions can be used as justification for an employee’s dismissal, especially when connected to a subsequent similar offense. In this case, Japos’ prior unauthorized absences and written warnings were considered in conjunction with his latest absences, leading to his dismissal.
    What is the significance of this ruling for employers? This ruling reinforces the right of employers to enforce their attendance policies and terminate employees who habitually neglect their duties. It highlights the importance of clear and consistently applied policies, as well as proper documentation of employee infractions.
    What is the significance of this ruling for employees? For employees, this ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to company policies regarding attendance and providing credible proof for absences. It serves as a reminder that unauthorized absences can lead to disciplinary action, including termination, and that medical certificates must be specific and verifiable to be considered valid.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of consistent attendance and adherence to company policies in the workplace. Employers have the right to enforce these policies and take disciplinary action, including termination, when employees fail to meet their obligations. Employees, in turn, must ensure they comply with attendance rules and provide credible justification for any absences.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: VIRGEL DAVE JAPOS v. FIRST AGRARIAN REFORM MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE (FARMCOOP), G.R. No. 208000, July 26, 2017