Dear Atty. Kathy,I am a new manager in a company. In my department, there is one employee, an assistant manager, Employee A, who has been employed by the Company for a long time. Employee A is vocal to me that he should have been the one promoted to my position, due to his tenure. After telling me this, Employee A just stopped reporting for work without giving notice. I issued Employee A a notice to report for work after he was absent without official leave for three working days. It has been eight working days, and still he has not reported for work. The Company’s Code of Conduct provides that seven days of consecutive absences is already abandonment of work. May I just confirm if the Company can already consider Employee A’s absence as abandonment?Jasper***Dear Jasper,As decided by the Supreme Court in many cases, abandonment, as a cause for dismissal, is a form of neglect of duty characterized by the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. For abandonment to exist, two requisites must concur, i.e.: (l) the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship as manifested by overt acts. The intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by a clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified.Based solely on your narration, Employee A suddenly stopped reporting for work, and has been absent without official leave for eight working days. There is no indication of a deliberate and unjustified intent on Employee A’s part to abandon his employment.The Supreme Court has ruled that mere absence or failure to report for work, even after notice to return, is not tantamount to abandonment. Aside from Employee’s absence from work, there should be proof of any overt conduct on Employee A’s part clearly manifesting a desire to end his employment. Thus, at this point, Employee A’s mere absence cannot be considered as abandonment, even if such abandonment is provided for in the Company’s Code of Conduct.(Richard M. Librando versus Ishida Philippines Grating Inc., et al., G.R. No. 259178, 15 August 2022)Atty. Kathy Larios
Related News
17 Mar, 2025
Angel City's Leroux takes mental health . . .
16 Mar, 2025
LIV Golf Singapore: Round One Highlights . . .
23 Mar, 2025
NYT Strands today — hints, spangram and . . .
21 Mar, 2025
How to Watch NCAA College Wrestling Cham . . .
20 Feb, 2025
Fraser Brown: Why Darcy Graham should si . . .
12 Mar, 2025
Seb Coe admits Man Utd stadium 'challeng . . .
17 Mar, 2025
Rory McIlroy's PLAYERS Championship Has . . .
02 Apr, 2025
Security guard who leaked Golriz Ghahram . . .