An employee has been absent for eight days. No leave form. No message. No call.

Can the company treat him as having abandoned his job and dismiss him?

Not so fast.

A prolonged, unexplained absence is serious. But under Philippine labor law, absence alone does not establish abandonment.

Before management ends the employment relationship, it must establish a valid reason for dismissal, follow the required process, and, if it relies on abandonment, prove two things: that the employee was absent without a valid reason, and that he clearly intended to cut ties with the company.

AWOL Is Not Automatically Abandonment

"AWOL" generally describes an employee's unauthorized or unexplained absence from work. It is an attendance label. It is not, by itself, a legal conclusion that the employee has abandoned his job.

This distinction matters.

An employee may have been absent without permission and may be subject to discipline under a valid company policy. But that does not automatically mean he abandoned his job or that dismissal is justified.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that abandonment requires two things:

• The employee failed to report for work without a valid or justifiable reason; and
• The employee clearly intended to cut ties with the company, shown by his actions or conduct.

The second is the more important one. A long absence may, in the right circumstances, point toward abandonment, but absence alone does not prove an intention to quit. The employer carries the burden of proving abandonment with substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person would accept as enough.

Abandonment is not listed by name as a just cause for dismissal under Article 297 of the Labor Code. The Court treats it as a form of neglect of duty. Even so, the employer must still prove both requirements before relying on it.

The Recent Supreme Court Reminder: Carpio v. Green Era Biotech

A useful recent example is Carpio v. Green Era Biotech Corp., G.R. No. 267217, November 19, 2025.

The employee was absent for eight days because he was sick. When he came back, he was given a notice to explain and a stern warning. He was then absent for nine more days. The company issued an "AWOL notice," and later its HR coordinator told him by text message that he could no longer return to work because he was on AWOL.

The Supreme Court found the dismissal illegal.

His absences were unauthorized. But nothing showed that he meant to quit. After his absences, he tried to report for work and was no longer allowed in. He then promptly filed a case for illegal dismissal, which does not fit with an intention to abandon the job.

The Court also looked at the company's rule that dismissed employees for five or more days of unexplained absence. It found that penalty too harsh and out of proportion to the offense, following its earlier ruling in Verizon v. Margin.

On due process, the Court said an "AWOL notice" is not the formal notice of decision the law requires, and a text message is no substitute for one. The employee was also not given a real chance to explain.

The employee was ordered reinstated, but without backwages. The Court explained that his absences were still unjustified and a violation of company policy, and that the company acted in good faith. The company also had to pay ₱30,000 in damages for failing to follow the proper process.

The lesson for employers is simple: an AWOL policy may help manage attendance, but it cannot replace the legal requirements for dismissal.

What Other Supreme Court Cases Teach Employers

In Agabon v. NLRC (2004), the Court found that the employees had abandoned their jobs after working for another company. Their conduct showed a clear intention to leave. But the employer failed to follow the proper process, so it had to pay ₱30,000 in damages, an amount the Court has generally followed since in similar cases.

In Aquinas School v. Magnaye (1997), a teacher was absent on sick leave, and the school treated her absences as abandonment under its seven-day rule. The Supreme Court disagreed. She had filed leave applications with medical certificates, which showed she intended to come back. The Court also said the school's rule was meant for absences without any notice, where the school does not know why the employee is absent. Otherwise, schools could simply withhold approval of leave and then call the absences unauthorized. But the Court also found she had repeatedly refused to follow the school's lawful orders, including an order to undergo a medical exam. That was a valid reason to dismiss her. The school still lost on process: it never told her she was being charged or gave her a chance to explain. The lesson: you can have a good reason to dismiss and still pay a price for skipping the proper steps.

In Verizon v. Margin (2020), the employee texted his supervisor that he was seriously ill and would not report. The company dismissed him after 38 days of absence, relying on its five-day rule. The Supreme Court said the dismissal was illegal. His notice was enough under the company's own policy, dismissal was too harsh a penalty, and the company gave him only 48 hours to explain and ignored his late reply. Still, he was not entirely blameless. He left no contact information and could not be reached, so the Court denied him backwages. The lesson: sickness does not excuse every lapse, but a strict absence rule does not make dismissal automatic.

In Demex Rattancraft v. Leron (2017), the company sent return-to-work notices and later terminated the employee. The Court nevertheless found the dismissal illegal. The evidence did not show a clear intention to abandon the job, and the employee had filed an illegal dismissal case right after being dismissed. The company also did not follow the required two-notice process. A return-to-work notice is not a substitute for the formal notice to explain and the notice of decision that a dismissal requires.

So What Should an Employer Do?

1. Check the attendance and leave rules.

Determine what the employee was required to do when absent: who should be notified, how quickly, what documents are required, and what discipline applies. Make sure the policy was properly issued and communicated to employees.

2. Find out what happened before deciding what it means.

Call or message the employee using the contact details on file. If appropriate, contact the designated emergency contact. Ask about the reason for the absence and when he expects to return. Document every attempt and every response.

3. If illness is claimed, request reasonable documentation.

Ask for the medical or other supporting documents that company policy requires, and give a reasonable period to submit them. If company policy and the circumstances allow it, appropriate medical verification may also be required.

4. Determine whether the absence is merely unauthorized, or evidence of abandonment.

Do not stop at the attendance record. Look at the surrounding circumstances.

Did the employee get another job? Did he tell coworkers or management that he was not coming back? Did he return company property? Did he try to report back? Did he respond to company messages? Did he file a leave request or otherwise show that he wanted to keep his job?

The question is not simply, "Was he absent?"

The question is also, "What does the evidence show about his intention?"

5. Consider a return-to-work notice.

Where the employee's status or whereabouts are unclear, the company may send a written notice directing him to report for work or explain his absence. It is prudent to send it to his last known address and, where appropriate, through available electronic means.

Keep proof that it was delivered, and keep his response, if any.

But remember: a return-to-work notice is not one of the two formal notices required for dismissal.

6. If dismissal is being considered, issue a proper notice to explain.

The first formal notice should state the facts clearly: the dates of absence, the company rule involved, the specific acts or omissions being charged, and the possible consequences. In abandonment cases, the rules require that the notice be sent to the employee's last known address.

The employee should be given a reasonable chance to respond, which generally means at least five calendar days from the day he actually receives the notice.

Do not simply write "AWOL" or "abandonment" and leave the employee to guess what he is supposed to explain.

7. Give a genuine opportunity to be heard.

Management should actually consider the employee's explanation and supporting documents. If he asks for a conference or hearing, or if one is reasonably needed to clear up disputed facts, hold it and document it.

Due process is not satisfied just because a notice to explain was issued.

8. Decide based on the evidence, not the label.

If the evidence shows both an unjustified absence and a clear intention to cut ties, abandonment may be established.

If it does not, check whether the employee committed a separate violation of the attendance or leave rules. If so, impose only the penalty that fits the violation, taking into account the company policy, the employee's record, and the circumstances. The penalty must fit the offense.

9. If dismissal is warranted, issue the second formal notice.

The notice of decision should tell the employee that all the circumstances were considered, what grounds were established, and what the decision is.

A text message saying, "You are AWOL and terminated," is not an adequate notice of decision.

10. Do not automatically refuse an employee who reports back.

If the employee returns while the matter is still being looked into, management should handle it according to company policy and the legal process. His attempt to return may itself be evidence against a claim that he meant to abandon his job.

What If the Employee Is Really Sick?

Illness should not automatically be treated as abandonment.

At the same time, saying "I am sick" does not excuse every failure to follow reasonable company procedures. The employer may require proper documentation and may check whether the absence was properly authorized.

A different rule applies when the employer wants to end employment because of the disease itself. Disease is an authorized cause for termination (a business or health-related reason rather than misconduct) only when the requirements of the law and its implementing rules are met, including a certification from a competent public health authority and payment of the appropriate separation pay.

What Happens If the Employer Gets the Process Wrong?

If the employer cannot prove a valid reason for dismissal, the termination may be declared illegal, with remedies such as reinstatement and backwages, depending on the circumstances of the case.

If there is a valid reason but the employer fails to follow the proper process, the dismissal may still stand, but the employer will be ordered to pay damages. Under the Agabon ruling, the Supreme Court has generally set this at ₱30,000.

That should never be treated as a "cost of doing business." The safer approach is to establish the ground and follow the process before making the decision.

Quick Checklist for HR and Business Owners

• Check the applicable attendance and leave rules.
• Document the employee's dates of absence.
• Make reasonable efforts to contact the employee.
• Find out whether the absence has a valid or justifiable explanation.
• Request reasonable supporting documents when appropriate.
• Look for evidence that he intended to cut ties.
• Do not treat the word "AWOL" as proof of abandonment.
• If dismissal is being considered, issue a proper notice to explain.
• Give at least five calendar days from actual receipt to respond.
• Give the employee a genuine opportunity to be heard.
• Check whether the evidence supports a valid ground and whether the penalty fits the offense.
• Issue a written notice of decision and keep proof that it was delivered.

The Bottom Line

AWOL is a fact. Abandonment is a legal conclusion.

An employee may be absent without authorization and may deserve discipline. But an employer should not automatically turn an attendance problem into a dismissal for abandonment.

Before ending the employment relationship, ask three questions:

1. What do we know about the absence?
2. What evidence shows that the employee intended to leave?
3. Have we followed the required process before making the decision?

A careful employer does not ignore a long absence. It looks into it, documents it, gives the employee a chance to explain, and makes the final decision only after considering the facts and the law.

That extra care may take a little more time. It can also keep an attendance problem from becoming an illegal dismissal case.