Overview

In Philippine labor law, redundancy and termination for absenteeism sit on opposite sides of the termination spectrum:

Redundancy is an authorized cause—a management decision driven by legitimate business needs. It is not based on employee fault, and it generally requires separation pay.
Absenteeism-based termination is typically a just cause—a disciplinary dismissal grounded on employee fault (e.g., gross and habitual neglect of duties, willful disobedience, or abandonment). It generally does not require separation pay, but it requires strict procedural due process.

Because they arise from different legal concepts, an employer cannot simply “choose” redundancy to address attendance problems, and an employee cannot be dismissed for absenteeism without meeting both substantive and procedural standards.

This article explains the differences, requirements, and employee rights in a Philippine context.

Core Legal Foundations

Security of tenure

Employees in the Philippines enjoy security of tenure: they may be dismissed only for just causes or authorized causes, and only with due process. Illegal dismissal exposes the employer to reinstatement and full backwages (or separation pay in lieu of reinstatement in certain situations) plus possible damages and attorney’s fees, depending on circumstances.

Two categories of lawful termination

Just Causes (employee-fault terminations) Examples include serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect, fraud/breach of trust, commission of a crime, and analogous causes.
Authorized Causes (business-driven terminations) Common examples include redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses, closure/cessation of business, and installation of labor-saving devices; also disease in specific situations.

The category matters because it determines:

whether separation pay is due,
what procedure applies,
what evidence is required,
what defenses are available in disputes.

Part I — Redundancy (Authorized Cause)

What redundancy means

Redundancy exists when a position or service becomes in excess of what is reasonably needed by the enterprise. This can happen due to:

reorganization,
merger or acquisition integration,
automation or systems change,
downturn in certain business lines,
streamlining to remove duplication,
outsourcing of a function,
abolition or consolidation of roles.

Redundancy is fundamentally about the position being unnecessary, not the employee being “undesirable.”

Key requirements for a valid redundancy termination

To be lawful, redundancy must satisfy both substantive and procedural requirements.

A. Substantive validity (the “real redundancy” test)

Employers must show that redundancy is:

Genuine (the position is truly superfluous),
Done in good faith (not a pretext to remove a specific employee),
Supported by fair and reasonable criteria in selecting who will be separated,
Backed by evidence (organizational charts, new staffing patterns, job descriptions, workflow studies, board/management approvals, etc.).

Fair selection criteria commonly recognized in practice include:

efficiency/performance,
seniority (length of service),
qualifications and skills,
discipline record (used carefully and consistently),
adaptability to new systems.

A common red flag is when the employer claims redundancy but later rehires someone for essentially the same role, or rebrands the position with minimal real change.

B. Procedural due process (authorized-cause procedure)

For redundancy, employers generally must:

Give written notice to the affected employee and the DOLE at least 30 days before the effective date of termination.
Pay separation pay and other final pay obligations.

Unlike just cause, redundancy is not primarily a disciplinary process; the critical procedural requirements are timely notices and proper payment, alongside proof of business justification.

Separation pay for redundancy

For redundancy, separation pay is generally at least:

One (1) month pay or
One (1) month pay per year of service, whichever is higher.

A fraction of at least six months is often treated as one year for computation in many employment contexts, but computations can be fact-sensitive (company policy, CBA, and applicable rulings). The safest approach is to compute based on recognized payroll definitions of “month pay” used in separation pay computations (typically basic pay plus certain regular allowances, depending on the case context).

Employee rights in redundancy

If you are selected for redundancy, you have the right to:

Receive the 30-day written notice (and the employer must notify DOLE),
Receive separation pay correctly computed,
Receive final pay and pro-rated benefits (e.g., unused leave conversions if company policy/CBA provides),
Receive a Certificate of Employment,
Question the validity of the redundancy (e.g., as a disguised just-cause termination),
Demand transparency on selection criteria if you suspect discrimination or bad faith.

Common employer missteps (and why they matter)

Redundancy terminations are often struck down or treated as illegal dismissal when:

No real redundancy is proven (mere allegation),
The “redundant” work continues under another title/person,
Selection was arbitrary or targeted,
The 30-day DOLE/employee notices were not served,
Separation pay was not paid or was underpaid,
It was used to bypass disciplinary due process (e.g., because an employee is “difficult” or frequently absent).

Part II — Termination for Absenteeism (Just Cause)

Absenteeism can justify dismissal only if it fits a recognized just cause and the employer complies with procedural due process.

Absenteeism is not automatically a just cause

Philippine labor standards generally require that absenteeism rise to a level that constitutes:

Gross and habitual neglect of duties, or
Willful disobedience of lawful orders/rules (like attendance rules), or
Abandonment, which has its own strict elements.

Occasional absences—even repeated—do not always equal lawful dismissal unless they meet the legal thresholds and are properly documented.

A. Gross and habitual neglect of duties

This is the most common legal home for chronic absenteeism.

Gross: serious, substantial neglect—not minor.
Habitual: repeated over time, showing a pattern.

To justify dismissal on this ground, employers typically need evidence such as:

time records showing pattern and frequency,
written warnings and prior discipline,
proof that absences harmed operations or violated clear policy,
proof that the employee had no valid justification and ignored corrective measures.

B. Willful disobedience (attendance policy violations)

Absenteeism may also be framed as willful disobedience when:

There is a reasonable and lawful rule/order (attendance rules, call-in procedures, leave approval rules),
The employee knew the rule,
The employee intentionally violated it (willful and wrongful).

This ground is stronger when the employer can show:

the policy is written and disseminated,
the employee was repeatedly reminded (notices, memos),
the employee deliberately ignored call-in/approval procedures.

C. Abandonment (a special, often-misused ground)

Abandonment is not the same as absenteeism. It requires two elements:

Failure to report for work without valid reason, and
A clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship (intent to abandon).

The intent element is crucial and often difficult to prove. Employees who:

file complaints,
respond to notices,
request reinstatement,
or communicate reasons for absence generally undermine the claim of abandonment.

Employers often lose abandonment cases when they rely only on “many days absent” without evidence of intent to permanently leave.

Due Process for Absenteeism Termination (Just Cause Procedure)

For just cause dismissal, Philippine practice requires procedural due process, often described as the twin-notice rule plus an opportunity to be heard:

First Notice (Notice to Explain / Charge Sheet)
- States the specific acts/omissions complained of (dates of absences/tardiness, violations of policy),
- Cites the rule violated and the possible penalty,
- Requires the employee to submit an explanation within a reasonable period.
Opportunity to be heard
- This can be a written explanation, meeting, or administrative conference/hearing,
- The key is a real chance to explain, present documents (medical certificates, leave requests, emergencies), and respond to evidence.
Second Notice (Notice of Decision)
- Informs the employee of the findings and the penalty (e.g., dismissal),
- Explains why the explanation was rejected (if applicable).

Important: Even if the employer has strong evidence of absenteeism, skipping due process can still expose the employer to liability (at minimum, procedural defect consequences), and can weaken the defense against illegal dismissal claims.

Part III — The Critical Differences (Why Misclassification Happens)

What redundancy is—and is not

Redundancy = the job is removed because the business no longer needs it.
Not redundancy = the job still exists, but the employer wants the employee out due to performance, attitude, or attendance.

What absenteeism termination is—and is not

Absenteeism termination = discipline for employee fault, meeting just-cause standards.
Not absenteeism termination = a business reorganization with proper notice and separation pay.

The “shortcut” problem

Some employers attempt to label a dismissal as redundancy to:

avoid the rigors of disciplinary due process,
avoid having to prove “gross and habitual” neglect,
reduce dispute risk by paying separation pay and hoping the employee won’t contest.

But if redundancy is a pretext, employees can challenge it as illegal dismissal.

Part IV — Employee Rights and Remedies in Disputes

If you believe you were illegally dismissed (wrong category, no basis, or no due process)

You may pursue remedies that can include:

Reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and
Full backwages from dismissal until reinstatement (or finality, depending on outcome),
Or separation pay in lieu of reinstatement in some situations (e.g., strained relations),
Possible damages and attorney’s fees if circumstances justify.

The exact relief depends on findings: whether the cause was invalid, whether due process was denied, and other case-specific factors.

If redundancy was valid but procedure was defective

If the business cause is genuine but notices/payments were mishandled, outcomes can vary by circumstances:

Employers may be ordered to pay missing separation pay or correct computations,
Procedural lapses can still create liabilities,
The strength of the underlying authorized cause remains pivotal.

If absenteeism occurred but dismissal was too harsh or inconsistently applied

Employees sometimes succeed when they show:

disproportionate penalty (e.g., dismissal without progressive discipline where policy requires it),
inconsistent enforcement (others with similar attendance were not dismissed),
valid reasons (medical emergencies, protected leave contexts, force majeure),
employer failed to consider mitigating circumstances.

Part V — Special Situations That Commonly Arise

1) Approved leave vs. unapproved leave

Approved leave generally cannot be treated as AWOL.
Unapproved leave / failure to follow call-in rules can be disciplinable, but dismissal still requires just cause and due process.

2) Medical issues and documentation

Frequent absences due to health issues can be legally complex:

If absences are justified and documented, termination for neglect may be harder to sustain.
If the employee is medically unfit for continued work, employers sometimes consider disease as an authorized cause (with specific legal requirements, including medical certification and due process steps), rather than framing it as misconduct.

3) Preventive suspension

Preventive suspension is not a penalty; it is a temporary measure when the employee’s continued presence poses a serious and imminent threat to life/property or to the integrity of the investigation. It should not be used automatically for attendance cases.

4) Probationary employees

Probationary employees can be terminated for:

failure to meet reasonable standards made known at hiring, or
for just/authorized causes. Even then, due process and evidence remain essential, and standards must be communicated.

5) Project/seasonal/fixed-term employees

End of project/season or end of a valid fixed term is not “redundancy.”
However, early termination still needs lawful grounds depending on contract type and facts.

Part VI — Practical Checklists

A. For employees facing “redundancy”

Ask for:

The written redundancy notice and effective date,
Proof DOLE was notified at least 30 days before effectivity,
Explanation of selection criteria and how you were evaluated,
Computation of separation pay and final pay,
A copy of your latest job description and new organizational chart (if available),
Any evidence that the position still exists or was re-filled.

Red flags:

You were singled out while the position remains,
A new hire appears in the same role after you’re removed,
The employer’s explanation sounds like performance/attendance complaints instead of business necessity.

B. For employees charged with AWOL/absenteeism

Do:

Respond promptly to the Notice to Explain,
Provide documents (medical certificates, incident reports, messages, screenshots of attempts to notify),
Clarify whether you followed call-in procedures and, if not, why,
Keep copies of all communications,
Attend the administrative conference/hearing if scheduled.

Red flags:

No written notices at all,
Immediate dismissal without chance to explain,
Vague accusations without dates and records.

C. For employers (to avoid illegal dismissal exposure)

For redundancy:

Prepare documentary support (org charts, business rationale),
Use fair and documented selection criteria,
Serve DOLE + employee notices 30 days prior,
Pay correct separation pay and final pay on time.

For absenteeism:

Maintain accurate timekeeping records,
Apply progressive discipline if policy requires it,
Issue proper first notice, allow meaningful response, then issue decision notice,
Avoid “abandonment” claims unless you can prove intent to sever.

Part VII — Frequently Asked Questions

Can an employer declare redundancy because the employee is always absent?

Not properly. If the real reason is attendance, the correct route is disciplinary action for just cause, not redundancy. Using redundancy as a substitute risks a finding of illegal dismissal if the “redundancy” is not genuine.

If I’m terminated for absenteeism, am I entitled to separation pay?

As a general rule, no, because just-cause terminations do not require separation pay. Exceptions can arise from company policy, CBA, compassionate practice, or settlements—but those are not the default rule.

What if I was absent due to emergencies but I failed to notify properly?

Failure to follow notice procedures can still be a violation, but dismissal depends on:

the severity and frequency,
your intent,
your record,
whether the employer applied rules consistently,
whether due process was observed.

What if the employer says I “abandoned” my job?

The employer must prove not only absence but intent to sever employment. If you communicated, explained, requested to return, or filed a complaint, abandonment is harder to establish.

What if redundancy is real but I was chosen unfairly?

Selection must be based on fair criteria. If you can show arbitrariness, discrimination, retaliation, or bad faith targeting, you may challenge the dismissal.

Key Takeaways

Redundancy is a business-driven authorized cause: it requires real organizational necessity, fair selection, 30-day notices to DOLE and employee, and separation pay.
Absenteeism termination is a fault-based just cause: it requires that the absenteeism meets legal standards (often gross and habitual neglect or willful disobedience) and strict twin-notice due process.
Mislabeling one as the other is a common source of illegal dismissal findings.
Employees should focus on documentation, timelines, and due process gaps, and assess whether the employer’s stated reason matches the reality.

If you want, paste (1) the employer’s notice wording and (2) the timeline of absences/notices (remove names), and I can map it to the correct legal framework and identify the strongest employee-rights issues to raise.