Introduction

In the Philippine labor landscape, employee absences can trigger complex disputes between employers and workers, particularly when absences lead to allegations of abandonment of work. Employers may engage in aggressive efforts to locate absent employees—often termed a "manhunt"—to determine intent or enforce attendance policies. However, such actions can cross into harassment, raising questions about due process rights under Philippine labor laws. This article explores the legal framework surrounding abandonment of work, the requirements for due process in dismissals, the potential for employer actions to constitute harassment, and the balance between employer prerogatives and employee protections. Drawing from the Labor Code of the Philippines, Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) regulations, and Supreme Court jurisprudence, it examines the intricacies of these issues to provide a comprehensive understanding.

Understanding Abandonment of Work

Abandonment of work is not explicitly defined in the Labor Code but is recognized as a just cause for termination under Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended. It falls under "gross and habitual neglect of duties," where an employee's prolonged absence without justification signals a deliberate intent to sever the employment relationship.

Elements of Abandonment

For an employer to validly dismiss an employee on grounds of abandonment, two essential elements must be proven:

Failure to Report for Work or Absence Without Valid or Justifiable Reason: This involves an unexplained or unexcused absence. Mere absence is insufficient; it must be prolonged and without communication from the employee. For instance, a single day or short period of absence typically does not qualify unless part of a pattern.
Clear Intention to Discontinue Employment: This is the overt act requirement. Courts require evidence of the employee's overt acts demonstrating intent to abandon, such as failure to respond to return-to-work orders, engaging in other employment during absence, or explicit statements of resignation. Without this, absence might be attributed to illness, family emergencies, or other valid reasons.

Supreme Court rulings emphasize that abandonment cannot be presumed. In Jo v. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) (G.R. No. 121605, 2000), the Court held that abandonment requires unequivocal intent, and employers bear the burden of proof. Similarly, in Tan v. NLRC (G.R. No. 128581, 1999), it was ruled that sporadic absences due to health issues do not constitute abandonment.

Common Scenarios Leading to Abandonment Claims

Unauthorized Leaves: Employees taking leaves without approval, especially extended ones.
AWOL (Absent Without Official Leave): Military or corporate jargon often used in workplaces, but legally, it must meet abandonment criteria.
Post-Disciplinary Absences: Absences following warnings or suspensions, where employees might fear reprisal.
Seasonal or Contractual Workers: In industries like agriculture or construction, irregular attendance can blur lines.

Employers must distinguish abandonment from constructive dismissal, where employees leave due to intolerable working conditions, as in Blue Dairy Corporation v. NLRC (G.R. No. 129843, 1999).

Due Process in Dismissals for Abandonment

Philippine labor law mandates procedural due process for terminations, even for just causes like abandonment. This is enshrined in Article 292 (formerly 277) of the Labor Code and amplified by DOLE Department Order No. 147-15 (Rules on Employee Termination).

Twin-Notice Rule

The process requires:

First Notice (Notice to Explain or Show Cause Letter): This must specify the acts constituting abandonment, provide details of the absence (dates, duration), and give the employee reasonable time (at least five days) to explain. It should be served personally, via registered mail, or other verifiable means.
Hearing or Conference (Optional but Recommended): While not mandatory, an opportunity for the employee to be heard strengthens the employer's case. This can be a formal meeting or written submissions.
Second Notice (Notice of Termination): If abandonment is upheld after considering the employee's explanation, this notice must state the findings and effective termination date.

Failure to comply invalidates the dismissal, rendering it illegal. In Agabon v. NLRC (G.R. No. 158693, 2004), the Court awarded nominal damages for due process violations despite a just cause. In Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot (G.R. No. 151378, 2005), dismissal for abandonment was voided due to lack of notice.

Service of Notices and Employer Efforts

Employers often face challenges serving notices to absent employees. Legitimate attempts include:

Visiting the employee's last known address.
Contacting relatives or emergency contacts.
Using phone, email, or social media.

However, these efforts must not escalate to harassment. The Labor Code does not prescribe a "manhunt," but jurisprudence allows reasonable diligence in locating employees to afford due process.

Employer “Manhunt”: Legitimate Inquiry or Harassment?

A "manhunt" refers to intensive employer actions to track down absent employees, such as repeated home visits, inquiries with neighbors, or involvement of authorities. While aimed at verifying abandonment, these can infringe on privacy and constitute harassment.

Legal Boundaries

Reasonable vs. Excessive Actions: Under the Civil Code (Article 26), every person must respect the dignity, personality, privacy, and peace of mind of others. Excessive pursuit can lead to civil liability for damages.
Harassment Under Labor Laws: Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act) covers workplace harassment, but general harassment falls under broader tort laws. In labor disputes, aggressive manhunts can be seen as bad faith, potentially leading to unfair labor practice claims under Article 259 (formerly 248) of the Labor Code.
Privacy Rights: The Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173) protects personal information; employers cannot disclose or misuse data in pursuits. The Constitution (Article III, Section 3) safeguards privacy of communication.

In Protective Services Agency v. Fuentes (G.R. No. 162943, 2006), the Court scrutinized employer investigations into absences, ruling that intrusive methods violate due process if they prejudice the employee.

When Manhunt Crosses into Harassment

Repeated Intrusive Contacts: Multiple unannounced visits or threats.
Involvement of Third Parties: Enlisting police without basis, which could amount to grave coercion under the Revised Penal Code (Article 286).
Public Shaming: Posting wanted-like notices or social media blasts.
Discriminatory Motives: Targeting based on union activity, pregnancy, or other protected statuses, violating RA 9710 (Magna Carta of Women) or RA 11313 (Safe Spaces Act).

Employees can file complaints with DOLE for illegal dismissal or the NLRC for unfair practices. If harassment involves violence, criminal charges under RA 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act) or general assault provisions may apply.

Balancing Employer Rights and Employee Protections

Employers have management prerogatives under Article 297, including discipline for absenteeism. However, these are tempered by employee security of tenure (Article 294, formerly 279).

Employer Defenses

Business Necessity: In time-sensitive industries, prompt action is justified.
Documentation: Keeping records of attempts to contact proves good faith.
Alternative Measures: Offering return-to-work incentives before termination.

Employee Remedies

Illegal Dismissal Claims: Filed with NLRC; remedies include reinstatement, backwages, and damages.
Constructive Dismissal: If manhunt forces resignation.
Moral and Exemplary Damages: For bad faith, as in Nuevo v. Global Services (G.R. No. 147119, 2003).
Preventive Suspension: Employers can suspend during investigation (up to 30 days), but not indefinitely.

Relevant Jurisprudence

Key Supreme Court decisions shape this area:

Arc-Men Food Industries v. NLRC (G.R. No. 130638, 2000): Absence due to fear of reprisal not abandonment.
Icawat v. NLRC (G.R. No. 123401, 1997): Mere failure to report insufficient without intent.
Kingsize Manufacturing v. NLRC (G.R. No. 110452, 1994): Employer must prove service of notices.
Eagle Star Security Services v. Mirando (G.R. No. 179512, 2009): Harassment in investigations can invalidate dismissals.
Pentagon Steel Corporation v. CA (G.R. No. 174118, 2009): Overzealous pursuits deemed constructive dismissal.

Recent trends (up to 2025) include DOLE advisories on remote work absences post-COVID, emphasizing digital notices but warning against cyber-harassment.

Practical Implications for Employers and Employees

For employers:

Develop clear attendance policies in company handbooks.
Train HR on due process to avoid litigation.
Use technology for notices (e.g., certified emails) but respect privacy.

For employees:

Communicate absences promptly with documentation.
Respond to notices to avoid abandonment presumptions.
Seek DOLE assistance if facing harassment.

Conclusion

The tension between abandonment of work and due process underscores the Philippine commitment to fair labor relations. Employers must navigate manhunts carefully to avoid harassment claims, ensuring actions are proportionate and documented. Ultimately, adherence to the Labor Code and jurisprudence protects both parties, fostering a balanced workplace.