To recap, Alvin Carpio was employed as a utility worker by Green Era Biotech Corporation. The company claimed that Carpio had been absent from work for several consecutive days without authority. Citing its Employee Handbook, which classified five consecutive unauthorized absences as a dismissible offense, the company treated him as AWOL and eventually terminated his employment.

Carpio admitted that he had missed work. According to him, however, his absences were due to illness and severe toothache. More importantly, after recovering, he returned to work intending to continue his employment. Instead of being allowed to resume his duties, he was informed that he had already been considered AWOL. Carpio then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Was there abandonment?

No, there was none. For abandonment to exist, two elements must be present. First, the employee must have unjustifiably failed to report for work. Second—and this is the more important requirement—the employee must have performed clear and unmistakable acts showing an intention to permanently sever the employer-employee relationship. Both elements must be proven. The absence of either one is fatal to a claim of abandonment.

The Supreme Court found that Green Era failed to prove the second element. Rather than abandoning his work, Carpio actually returned to the workplace after his absences and attempted to resume his duties. When he was refused entry, he did not simply disappear. Instead, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and asked to be reinstated.

According to the Court, these actions demonstrated the exact opposite of abandonment. A person who genuinely intends to abandon his employment does not ordinarily seek to recover his job through legal action.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that abandonment is largely a question of intent. Employees may be absent from work for many reasons. Some may be sick. Others may have family emergencies. Some may even commit workplace violations deserving disciplinary action. But those circumstances do not necessarily mean that the employee has decided never to return.

Because abandonment results in the loss of one’s livelihood, the law requires employers to present clear evidence that the employee truly intended to sever the employment relationship.Intent cannot simply be presumed from absence alone.

The decision does not prevent employers from disciplining employees who incur unauthorized absences.Repeated absenteeism may still justify disciplinary action and, in appropriate cases, dismissal.What employers cannot do is automatically conclude that an employee has abandoned his work simply because he has been absent for several days.Each case must still be evaluated based on the employee’s conduct and surrounding circumstances.If the employee later returns to work, communicates a desire to continue working, or promptly files a complaint for illegal dismissal, those actions may strongly indicate that there was never any intention to abandon the job.

Carpio v. Green Era Biotech Corp. G.R No. 267217. November 19, 2025.