Introduction

In the Philippine employment landscape, the management of employee leaves is a critical aspect of labor relations, governed primarily by the Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended) and related Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) regulations. Excessive leaves, particularly when taken irregularly or without proper authorization, can disrupt workplace operations and lead to disciplinary measures. This issue becomes nuanced when applied to "irregular employees," a term that, in Philippine jurisprudence and practice, often refers to non-regular workers such as casual, probationary, project-based, seasonal, or fixed-term employees who do not enjoy the full security of tenure afforded to regular employees. However, it may also colloquially encompass employees exhibiting irregular attendance patterns, regardless of employment status.

This article comprehensively explores the legal framework surrounding disciplinary actions for excessive leaves by irregular employees. It covers definitions, statutory entitlements and limitations on leaves, grounds for discipline, procedural requirements, potential sanctions, and implications for employers and employees. The discussion is rooted in Philippine labor laws, emphasizing the balance between employee rights and employer prerogatives.

Definitions and Classifications

Irregular Employees

Under Philippine law, employees are classified based on the nature of their employment:

Regular Employees: Those who perform activities necessary or desirable to the usual business of the employer and have security of tenure after probation (Article 280, Labor Code).
Probationary Employees: Engaged for a trial period not exceeding six months, during which they may be terminated for failure to meet standards (Article 281).
Casual Employees: Hired for work incidental to the business, but they may attain regular status after one year of service (Article 280).
Project Employees: Employed for a specific project or undertaking, with employment terminating upon project completion.
Seasonal Employees: Hired for work during a particular season, recurring annually.
Fixed-Term Employees: Engaged for a definite period, provided the contract is not a circumvention of security of tenure.

"Irregular employees" is not a formal classification in the Labor Code but is often used to describe non-regular workers or those with erratic attendance. For disciplinary purposes, excessive leaves by these employees are treated similarly to regular ones, though termination thresholds may be lower due to limited tenure protections.

Excessive Leaves

Leaves are absences from work, which may be authorized (e.g., vacation, sick leave) or unauthorized (absent without official leave, or AWOL). "Excessive leaves" typically refer to:

Absences exceeding statutory entitlements.
Habitual or repeated unauthorized absences.
Irregular patterns of leave-taking that indicate neglect of duties.

Statutory leaves include:

Service Incentive Leave (SIL): Five days per year for employees with at least one year of service (Article 95).
Maternity Leave: 105 days for female employees (Republic Act No. 11210).
Paternity Leave: Seven days for married male employees (Republic Act No. 8187).
Solo Parent Leave: Seven days annually (Republic Act No. 8972).
Special leaves for women (e.g., gynecological disorders) and violence against women (Republic Act No. 9262).
Sick Leave: Not mandated by law but often provided via collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) or company policy.

Excessive leaves beyond these, especially if unauthorized, can constitute grounds for discipline.

Legal Basis for Disciplinary Actions

Grounds Under the Labor Code

Disciplinary actions for excessive leaves stem from Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code, which outlines just causes for termination:

Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duties: Habitual absenteeism or excessive unauthorized leaves fall here, as they demonstrate negligence that prejudices the employer's interests. Jurisprudence (e.g., Supreme Court decisions) defines "habitual" as repeated instances, not isolated absences, and "gross" as significantly impacting operations.
Willful Disobedience: Refusing to report despite warnings or taking leaves against company rules.
Serious Misconduct: If leaves involve falsification (e.g., fake medical certificates).

For irregular employees:

Probationary employees may be dismissed for failure to qualify, including poor attendance, without needing just cause.
Casual or project employees have no security of tenure, but dismissals must still be for valid reasons and with due process to avoid illegal dismissal claims.
Fixed-term employees' contracts may include clauses on attendance, allowing non-renewal for excessive leaves.

DOLE Department Order No. 147-15 emphasizes that absenteeism must be willful and habitual to justify termination. Isolated illnesses or emergencies (e.g., force majeure) are excusable.

Company Policies and CBAs

Employers may establish internal rules on leaves via employee handbooks or CBAs, provided they do not contravene law. These may define "excessive" as, e.g., more than three unauthorized absences per month. Violations can lead to progressive discipline.

Procedural Requirements

Philippine law mandates procedural due process for all employees, including irregular ones, to prevent arbitrary actions (Article 292, Labor Code; King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, G.R. No. 166208, 2007).

Twin-Notice Rule

First Notice: A written notice specifying the acts or omissions (e.g., dates of excessive leaves) and requiring an explanation within a reasonable period (at least five days).
Administrative Hearing or Conference: Opportunity for the employee to defend themselves, present evidence, and be assisted by counsel or a representative.
Second Notice: Written decision indicating findings and the sanction imposed.

For probationary or casual employees, while security of tenure is limited, due process is still required for dismissals during the engagement period.

Failure to observe due process renders dismissal illegal, entitling the employee to reinstatement, backwages, or separation pay (Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, 2004).

Burden of Proof

The employer bears the burden to prove the validity of the disciplinary action, including documentation of leaves (e.g., attendance records, warnings).

Potential Sanctions

Disciplinary measures should be progressive and proportionate:

Verbal or Written Warning: For initial infractions.
Suspension: Without pay, for a reasonable duration (e.g., 1-30 days, per DOLE guidelines).
Demotion or Transfer: If applicable, though rare for attendance issues.
Termination: As a last resort for habitual cases.

For irregular employees:

Probationary: Non-confirmation of regularization.
Casual/Project: Immediate termination or non-renewal, but with due process.
If excessive leaves lead to constructive dismissal (e.g., forced resignation), the employee may file claims.

Sanctions must not be discriminatory (e.g., based on gender, disability) under laws like Republic Act No. 7277 (Magna Carta for Disabled Persons).

Implications and Remedies

For Employees

Rights: Irregular employees retain basic rights, including pro-rated leave benefits if applicable (e.g., SIL after one year). They can challenge actions via DOLE complaints or National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal.
Remedies: Reinstatement with backwages, damages, or separation pay if dismissal is unjust. In cases of health-related leaves, the Employees' Compensation Commission may provide benefits if work-related.

For Employers

Liabilities: Illegal dismissal can result in monetary awards (up to full backwages) and administrative fines. Employers must maintain records to defend actions.
Best Practices: Implement clear leave policies, provide counseling for attendance issues, and consider underlying causes (e.g., personal problems) before escalating.

Special Considerations

COVID-19 and Health Emergencies: DOLE advisories (e.g., Labor Advisory No. 17-20) allow flexible arrangements; excessive leaves due to quarantine may not be disciplinary.
Unionized Settings: CBAs may provide additional protections or grievance mechanisms.
Jurisprudential Trends: Courts favor employees in doubtful cases, requiring substantial evidence of habituality (e.g., Cavite Apparel, Inc. v. Michelle Marquez, G.R. No. 172044, 2011).

Conclusion

Disciplinary actions for excessive leaves by irregular employees in the Philippines must align with the principles of fairness, due process, and proportionality enshrined in the Labor Code. While irregular employees have fewer protections than regulars, employers cannot act capriciously. Comprehensive policies, documentation, and adherence to procedures mitigate risks. Ultimately, fostering a supportive work environment can reduce such issues, benefiting both parties in the employment relationship. This framework ensures labor peace while upholding productivity.