Alvin Carpio worked as a utility employee for Green Era Biotech Corporation. According to the company, Carpio repeatedly failed to report for work without permission. The company claimed that he had been absent for several consecutive days and, pursuant to its Employee Handbook, considered him AWOL. Under the handbook, an employee who incurred five consecutive unauthorized absences could be dismissed.

Carpio told a different story. He admitted that he had been absent from work but explained that some of his absences were due to illness and severe toothache. More importantly, after recovering, he returned to the workplace intending to resume his duties.

He was not allowed to return. Instead, he was informed that he had already been considered AWOL and that his employment had effectively been terminated. Believing that he had been illegally dismissed, Carpio filed a labor complaint.

Was Carpio legally dismissed?

Yes, he was. Being absent from work without permission is a violation of company rules. But absence alone does not automatically amount to abandonment of employment. To constitute abandonment, the law requires two elements.

First, the employee must have unjustifiably failed to report for work. Second—and more importantly—the employee must have clearly intended to sever the employer-employee relationship. Without that intention, there is no abandonment.

The Supreme Court found that Carpio’s own actions contradicted any claim that he intended to abandon his job. After his absences, he reported back to work. When he was refused entry, he did not simply walk away. Instead, he promptly filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and sought reinstatement.

According to the Court, these acts were completely inconsistent with an intention to permanently leave his employment. After all, a person who truly wishes to abandon his job does not usually fight to get it back.

What about the company’s handbook?

Green Era relied heavily on its Employee Handbook, which treated five consecutive unauthorized absences as a dismissible offense. The Supreme Court recognized an employer’s right to adopt reasonable workplace rules and discipline employees who violate them.

However, that prerogative is not unlimited. The Court explained that dismissal is the most severe penalty that may be imposed upon an employee. Because of its serious consequences, termination must always be proportionate to the offense committed. In Carpio’s case, although his absences were unauthorized, the Court found that the penalty of dismissal was excessively harsh under the circumstances. The company failed to establish that Carpio had abandoned his work. As a result, his dismissal could not stand.

Does going AWOL always lead to dismissal?

No. This decision does not mean that employees are free to ignore company attendance policies. Unauthorized absences remain valid grounds for disciplinary action. Depending on the circumstances, an employer may impose appropriate sanctions ranging from warnings and suspensions to, in proper cases, dismissal.

What the decision makes clear is that employers cannot automatically equate several days of absence with abandonment. There must still be evidence that the employee intended to permanently sever the employment relationship. That intent cannot simply be presumed from the fact of absence alone.

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