Yes—but only in specific, well-documented circumstances. In Philippine labor law, termination for late notice of absence is not automatic, and the employer must satisfy both substantive and procedural due process. Late notice is usually treated as a disciplinary issue (neglect of duty or violation of company rules), and dismissal is valid only when the lateness is serious, willful, and accompanied by proper process, or when it forms part of a pattern of habitual misconduct.

This article explains the full legal landscape: grounds, standards, processes, defenses, and practical guidance in the Philippine setting.

1. The Legal Framework

Termination of employment in the Philippines is governed primarily by:

The Labor Code of the Philippines
DOLE rules and regulations
Supreme Court jurisprudence (decisions interpreting just causes, due process, proportionality)
Company policies and CBA provisions, so long as they are lawful and reasonable

The Constitution’s policy of protecting labor means courts generally interpret dismissal grounds strictly against employers and require clear proof.

2. Late Notice of Absence vs. Absence Itself

It’s important to separate two issues:

Unauthorized Absence / Absence Without Leave (AWOL)
Late Notice of Absence (absence may be justified, but notice was not timely)

Late notice is typically not the same as abandonment or AWOL. You can be absent for a valid reason, but still violate a rule requiring advance notice or prompt reporting.

3. When Late Notice May Be a Just Cause for Termination

An employer may terminate an employee for late notice only if it fits a “just cause” under Article 297 [282] of the Labor Code, most commonly:

A. Serious Misconduct

Late notice rises to serious misconduct only when:

The rule on notice is reasonable, known, and enforced
The employee intentionally or perversely disregards it
The violation is grave and relates to work performance or trust

Late notice due to illness or emergency is usually not serious misconduct unless evidence shows bad faith.

B. Willful Disobedience (Insubordination)

Requires proof that:

A lawful order or rule existed (e.g., “notify supervisor at least 2 hours before shift”)
The employee knew about it
The employee willfully refused to comply
The rule relates to duties and business operations

A single late notice is rarely enough unless willfulness is clear.

C. Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duties

Late notice may be considered neglect if it:

Causes serious operational disruption, and
Is habitual (repeated, persistent), and
Shows indifference to duties

Courts require both grossness (seriousness) and habituality (repetition).

D. Fraud or Willful Breach of Trust

Applies when:

The employee holds a position of trust (cashier, manager, HR, etc.)
Late notice is tied to dishonesty, manipulation, or concealment
Example: repeated “late notice” to cover misconduct, or falsely claiming emergencies

4. When Late Notice Is Not Valid Ground for Termination

Dismissal is likely illegal if:

The absence was due to verifiable illness or emergency
The employee tried to notify as soon as reasonably possible
The rule on notice is vague, unreasonable, or not communicated
The employer is selective or inconsistent in enforcing the rule
The employer treats one minor lapse as dismissal without proportionality
There is no proof of willfulness, bad faith, or habitual pattern

Philippine labor jurisprudence places weight on human realities—illness, accidents, calamities, and sudden emergencies can excuse late notice.

5. The Role of Company Policies and Employee Handbook

Employers may set notice rules, such as:

Inform supervisor before shift
Use a specific reporting channel
Provide medical certificate within X days
File a leave form in advance (where practicable)

But for these rules to justify dismissal:

They must be lawful and reasonable
Clearly communicated to employees
Consistently enforced
Provide graduated penalties (warning → suspension → dismissal) unless the offense is truly severe

If the handbook says late notice = suspension for first offense, dismissal for one incident would be disproportionate.

6. Proportionality and the “Totality of Circumstances”

Even if a rule was violated, the Supreme Court consistently asks whether dismissal is proportionate. Factors considered include:

Frequency and pattern of late notice
Length of service
Past disciplinary record
Severity of operational harm
Employee’s intent and good faith
Whether lesser penalties were attempted

A long-tenured employee with one late notice due to emergency will almost never be validly dismissed.

7. Due Process Requirements (Twin-Notice Rule)

Even with a valid ground, dismissal is illegal without due process. Employers must follow:

Step 1: First Notice (Notice to Explain)

Must specify:

The acts complained of (dates, details)
The rule violated
The possible penalty (including dismissal)
A reasonable time to respond (commonly at least 5 calendar days)

Step 2: Opportunity to Be Heard

Written explanation, and/or
Administrative hearing if requested or if facts are disputed Hearing is required when:
The employee asks for one
There are substantial factual issues
Company rules require it

Step 3: Second Notice (Notice of Decision)

Must state:

Findings and reasons
Evidence relied upon
Penalty imposed
Effectivity date

Failure in procedure can lead to employer liability even if just cause exists.

8. AWOL vs. Late Notice vs. Abandonment

AWOL

Absence without approved leave or valid reason
Still not always ground for dismissal unless habitual or willful

Late Notice

Absence may be valid, but notice was not timely
Usually a lesser offense

Abandonment

A special form of neglect requiring two elements:

Failure to report for work without valid reason, AND
Clear intent to sever employment

Intent is crucial; mere absence or late notice is not abandonment.

9. Common Lawful Scenarios for Dismissal

Termination may be upheld when:

The employee repeatedly fails to notify despite warnings/suspensions
The employee uses late notice to evade accountability or falsify reasons
The position is critical (e.g., hospital staff, security) and lateness causes severe harm
The employee ignores explicit directives on reporting absences

The key is pattern + willfulness + fair process.

10. Common Unlawful Scenarios

Termination often fails when:

The employer dismisses for a single late notice
The employee was sick or in distress and notified promptly upon ability
The employer lacked proof or relied on assumptions
The employer skipped notices/hearing
The employer applied the rule selectively

11. Employee Defenses and Remedies

Employees may defend against termination by showing:

Justified reason for absence (illness, emergency)
Reasonable inability to notify earlier
Proof of attempt to communicate
Inconsistent enforcement
Disproportionate penalty

If dismissal is illegal, remedies include:

Reinstatement without loss of seniority, or separation pay in lieu if reinstatement is no longer viable
Full backwages
Damages and attorney’s fees in some cases
Nominal damages if only procedural due process was violated but just cause existed

12. Practical Guidance

For Employers

Draft clear absence-notice rules
Train supervisors to document violations
Use progressive discipline
Investigate context before charging
Always follow the twin-notice rule

For Employees

Notify as soon as physically/technically possible
Keep call logs, messages, or witnesses
Submit documents promptly (medical certs, incident reports)
Respond to NTEs carefully and on time
Ask for a hearing if facts are disputed

13. Bottom Line

Late notice of absence can be a valid ground for termination in the Philippines only when:

It falls under a just cause (serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross/habitual neglect, or breach of trust),
The employer proves willfulness/bad faith or habitual pattern,
Dismissal is proportionate, and
The employer follows procedural due process.

Absent these, termination for late notice is likely to be ruled illegal dismissal.

If you want, I can draft a sample Notice to Explain, a progressive discipline matrix, or a policy clause that aligns with Philippine standards.