The imposition of suspension as a disciplinary measure for tardiness and absences is one of the most common yet most litigated issues in Philippine labor relations. Employers exercise management prerogative to enforce attendance rules, while employees are protected by the security of tenure clause under Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution and the Labor Code. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that while habitual tardiness and absenteeism are valid grounds for disciplinary action—including suspension—the penalty must always be proportionate, reasonable, and imposed only after observance of substantive and procedural due process.

Legal Framework

The primary sources of law are:

Articles 297 and 298 (formerly 282 and 283) of the Labor Code – Just causes and authorized causes for termination. Habitual tardiness and absenteeism fall under “gross and habitual neglect of duties.”
Article 124 (formerly 113) of the Labor Code – Preventive suspension pending investigation (maximum 30 days).
Book V, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code – Disciplinary procedure for suspension and termination.
DOLE Department Order No. 147-15 (Guidelines on the Implementation of Labor Standards Enforcement) and DOLE Labor Advisory No. 10-19 (Guidelines on Working Hours and Flexible Work Arrangements).
Settled Supreme Court jurisprudence (e.g., R.B. Michael Press v. Galit, G.R. No. 153510, February 13, 2008; Challenge Socks Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 165268, November 8, 2006; Lynvil Fishing Enterprises v. Ariola, G.R. No. 181974, February 1, 2012).

When Is Tardiness or Absence Considered a Just Cause for Suspension?

1. Habitual Tardiness

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that tardiness becomes a just cause for disciplinary action only when it is both gross and habitual.

“Habitual” is generally interpreted as at least 6–10 instances within a reasonable period (usually 3–6 months), depending on company policy and the nature of the work.
“Gross” means the tardiness demonstrates a reckless disregard for company rules and adversely affects operations.
A single or occasional tardiness is never a valid ground for suspension or termination.

Notable rulings:

Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 114307, July 8, 1998) – PAL’s policy of 6 tardiness incidents in a month = 1 day absence; Supreme Court upheld termination for accumulated habitual tardiness.
Concepcion v. Minex Import Corporation (G.R. No. 153569, January 24, 2012) – Employee with 126 tardiness incidents in one year was validly dismissed.

2. Habitual Absenteeism / Unauthorized Absences

One (1) day of unauthorized absence is generally not sufficient for suspension, unless the absence caused serious damage (e.g., production line stoppage).
Three (3) to five (5) consecutive days of absence without official leave (AWOL) is already considered abandonment of work and may justify immediate termination (30-day rule under jurisprudence).
Frequent but non-consecutive unauthorized absences (e.g., 10–15 days in a year) constitute gross and habitual neglect.

Key cases:

Agabon v. NLRC (G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004) – Abandonment requires (a) failure to report for work or absence without valid reason, and (b) overt act showing intention to sever employment.
Harpoon Marine Services v. Francisco (G.R. No. 167751, March 2, 2011) – Employee who incurred 23 absences in six months was validly dismissed.

3. Excused vs. Unexcused Absences

Absences due to illness (with medical certificate), emergency leave, maternity/paternity leave, solo parent leave, VAWC leave, bereavement leave, or approved vacation/sick leave are excused and cannot be counted against the employee for disciplinary purposes.

Company Policy Requirements

The Supreme Court requires that the company policy on tardiness and absences must be:

Reasonable
Made known to all employees (posting, handbook acknowledgment, orientation)
Consistently implemented
Provides for graduated penalties (verbal warning → written reprimand → suspension → termination)

A policy that imposes suspension for a single tardiness or absence is generally struck down as unconscionable (Asian Transmission Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 144664, March 15, 2004).

Common acceptable graduated penalty schemes upheld by courts:

Infraction Count (within 12 months)	Typical Penalty
1st–3rd tardiness/absence	Verbal warning
4th–6th	Written reprimand
7th–10th	3–15 days suspension
11th or more	Termination

Due Process Requirements for Suspension

Suspension for tardiness or absences is a penalty that affects the employee’s property right to wages. Hence, both substantive and procedural due process must be observed.

Procedural Due Process (King of Kings Transport rule, G.R. No. 166208, June 29, 2007)

First Written Notice (Notice to Explain or NTE) – must specify the particular acts of tardiness/absences with dates and how they violate company policy.
Ample Opportunity to be Heard – at least 5 calendar days to submit written explanation; hearing/conference if requested or if explanation is unsatisfactory.
Second Written Notice (Notice of Decision) – states the findings, the specific penalty (e.g., 15-day suspension), and the effective dates.

Failure to observe procedural due process renders the suspension illegal, even if the employee is guilty. The employee is then entitled to full backwages for the entire period of suspension (Philippine Span Asia Carriers v. Pelayo, G.R. No. 212003, February 28, 2018).

Preventive Suspension

An employer may place an employee under preventive suspension for a maximum of 30 days while investigating serious offenses. If the investigation is not completed within 30 days, the employee must be reinstated or placed on payroll. Preventive suspension is not a penalty; it is merely precautionary.

Remedies When Suspension Is Illegal

Illegal Suspension (without just cause or without due process)
- Employee may file a complaint for illegal suspension with the NLRC within 4 years.
- Remedies: full backwages for the entire suspension period + moral/exemplary damages if done in bad faith + attorney’s fees (10%).
Constructive Dismissal
- If the suspension is unreasonably long or imposed to force resignation, it may be considered constructive dismissal, entitling the employee to reinstatement, full backwages, and damages.
Money Claims
- Unpaid wages during illegal suspension are recoverable even if the employee did not file for illegal dismissal, as long as filed within 3 years (Article 306, Labor Code).

Special Cases

Probationary Employees – May be terminated for failure to qualify under reasonable standards made known at the time of engagement, which may include attendance standards.
Managerial Employees – Loss of trust and confidence may be invoked even for a single act of tardiness if it shows unreliability.
Flexible Work Arrangements – Under DOLE Advisory No. 10-19 and the Telecommuting Act (RA 11165), tardiness rules may be adjusted, but core attendance obligations remain.

Conclusion

Suspension for tardiness and absences is perfectly legal and routinely upheld by Philippine courts provided: (1) the infraction is habitual and gross, (2) company policy is reasonable, known, and consistently applied, (3) graduated penalties are imposed, and (4) full substantive and procedural due process is observed.

Employers who shortcut due process or impose draconian penalties invariably lose before the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Supreme Court—and end up paying substantial backwages and damages. Conversely, employees who treat company attendance rules with cavalier disregard will find little sympathy from the courts.

Strict adherence to the law and fair, documented disciplinary procedures remain the best protection for both employer and employee.