1) Why repeated absences become a termination issue in Philippine labor law

In the Philippines, “absences” are not automatically a valid ground for dismissal. Termination must be anchored on:

A lawful ground (either a just cause or an authorized cause), and
Compliance with due process (the required notices and opportunity to be heard).

Repeated absences become legally risky for employees when they are unauthorized, frequent, and sufficiently serious under a valid ground—typically gross and habitual neglect of duties, willful disobedience of a lawful attendance policy, an analogous cause under company rules, or (in a different track) termination due to disease when statutory conditions are met.

At the same time, employers face substantial risk of an illegal dismissal finding if they terminate someone whose absences were covered by lawful leave, properly approved, medically justified, or if the employer skips due process.

2) The legal framework: just causes vs authorized causes

A. Just causes (employee’s fault)

Under the Labor Code (renumbered provisions), just causes include:

Willful disobedience of lawful orders,
Gross and habitual neglect of duties,
Fraud or willful breach of trust,
Commission of a crime against the employer or its representatives,
Other analogous causes.

Repeated absences usually fall under:

Gross and habitual neglect of duties (most common), or
Willful disobedience (attendance rules are “lawful orders”), or
Analogous causes (e.g., AWOL provisions in company rules, when properly framed and proven).

B. Authorized causes (not primarily fault-based)

Authorized causes include redundancy, retrenchment, closure, etc. Repeated absences are generally not in this category—except where the underlying issue is disease that meets legal criteria for termination due to disease (discussed in Section 7).

3) What counts as “unauthorized” absence

An absence is typically “unauthorized” when it is:

Without approved leave, and
Without proper notice and/or without acceptable supporting documents required by policy (e.g., medical certificate), and
Not otherwise protected by law.

Important: employers may impose reasonable notice and documentation rules, but these rules must be:

Clearly communicated (handbook, policy, memos),
Reasonable and work-related, and
Applied consistently and in good faith.

An absence that is covered by approved leave credits or a statutory leave benefit is generally not “unauthorized” (unless the employee commits fraud, misrepresentation, or violates reasonable procedures in bad faith).

4) Leave credits and “no work, no pay”: what the law requires vs what employers grant

A. The baseline statutory leave: Service Incentive Leave (SIL)

For many employees, the main mandatory paid leave under the Labor Code is Service Incentive Leave (SIL):

5 days with pay after at least 1 year of service, subject to common exemptions (e.g., certain managerial employees and other exempt categories, and employers already granting at least 5 days paid leave).

If an employer already provides vacation/sick leave totaling at least the SIL minimum, SIL is often treated as “already complied with.”

Unused SIL is generally convertible to cash if not used (subject to rules and lawful company policy on conversion/usage, consistent with standards).

B. Sick leave is not universally mandated by the Labor Code

There is no across-the-board Labor Code requirement that private employers provide a separate “sick leave” benefit (outside SIL). Many employers voluntarily grant sick leave in policies or CBAs, and once granted, it becomes enforceable as a benefit and must be administered fairly.

C. Leave credits do not automatically excuse all absences

Even with leave credits, an employee may still violate policy if they:

Fail to file leave as required without valid reason,
Repeatedly abuse leave processes,
Submit falsified medical documents,
Or take leave in a way that violates a reasonable “prior approval” rule (subject to emergency/medical exceptions).

D. “No work, no pay” is the default, but termination still needs a valid ground

If leave credits are exhausted and absences continue, the employer may apply “no work, no pay.” But dismissing the employee requires:

A valid legal ground (just cause or disease termination), and
Due process compliance.

5) When repeated absences become a just cause

A. Gross and habitual neglect of duties (the usual route)

This ground generally requires proof that:

The neglect is gross (serious, not trivial), and
The neglect is habitual (repeated, showing a pattern).

Frequent unauthorized absences may qualify when they:

Disrupt operations,
Persist despite warnings,
And reflect disregard of duty to report for work.

Key practical point: one or two absences—even if unauthorized—often do not meet the “gross and habitual” threshold by themselves, absent aggravating factors. Employers usually need a pattern plus documentation and often progressive discipline (unless the policy reasonably treats the infraction as severe and is consistently applied).

B. Willful disobedience (attendance policy as lawful order)

To dismiss under willful disobedience, employers typically must show:

A lawful and reasonable order (e.g., attendance and call-in rules),
The employee knew of it,
The order relates to duties,
The violation was willful (intentional, not merely accidental or unavoidable).

If absences were due to bona fide emergencies or medically supported incapacity, “willfulness” becomes harder to prove.

C. Analogous causes (e.g., AWOL under company rules)

“Analogous causes” must be similar in nature and seriousness to listed just causes, and must still meet fairness and due process requirements.

Policies labeling conduct as “AWOL = dismissible” are not self-executing. Employers still need to prove the factual basis and satisfy procedural due process. Additionally, a rule’s enforcement must be proportionate and consistent.

6) Abandonment is not the same as repeated absences

Employers sometimes invoke abandonment when an employee is frequently absent. Legally, abandonment is a specific concept and generally requires:

Failure to report for work or absence without valid reason, and
A clear intent to sever the employment relationship (shown by overt acts).

Mere absences—even repeated—do not automatically prove intent to abandon. Employers often need evidence such as the employee ignoring return-to-work directives and behaving as if they no longer want the job.

7) Medical leave and illness: when absence becomes “disease termination” vs when it should not

A. Illness-related absences are not automatically a just cause

If absences are due to legitimate illness, employers should be cautious before treating them as “neglect” or “disobedience,” especially when the employee:

Notifies the employer as soon as practicable,
Provides medical documentation when required and reasonable,
And acts in good faith.

Terminating a legitimately ill employee under a fault-based ground can be risky if the evidence suggests inability rather than willful neglect.

B. Termination due to disease (authorized cause track)

The Labor Code allows termination when:

The employee has a disease and continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to health (of the employee or co-workers), and
There is a required medical certification by a competent public health authority that the disease is of such nature or at such stage that it cannot be cured within six (6) months even with proper medical treatment (as commonly applied in practice).

If the legal conditions for disease termination are met, the employer must generally:

Provide the required notice,
Pay the legally required separation pay (commonly framed as at least one month pay or one-half month pay per year of service, whichever is higher, with a fraction of at least six months typically counted as one year under standard separation pay computations), and
Observe procedural requirements.

Common pitfalls for employers:

Terminating without proper certification,
Using disease termination as a shortcut when the real issue is attendance discipline,
Or mixing standards (fault-based dismissal language) with disease-based termination without meeting disease requirements.

C. Fitness-to-work, medical clearance, and reasonable procedures

Employers may require:

A medical certificate for sick leave,
A fitness-to-work clearance after certain illnesses or extended absence,
And compliance with occupational health and safety protocols.

But these must be implemented reasonably, consistently, and with respect for privacy and non-discrimination norms.

8) Statutory leave benefits that protect absences (and retaliation risk)

Even if an employee has no remaining “leave credits,” certain statutory leaves protect absences when properly invoked. Key examples include:

Maternity leave (expanded maternity leave law; generally 105 days with pay, with additional benefits in specific cases),
Paternity leave (7 days with pay for qualified employees),
Solo parent leave (generally 7 working days annually for qualified solo parents, subject to statutory conditions),
VAWC leave (generally 10 days for qualified victims under the anti-VAWC framework),
Special leave for women (for qualified gynecological conditions, subject to statutory requirements).

Absences covered by these leaves should not be treated as attendance infractions. Adverse action that effectively punishes lawful leave-taking can raise legal risk (including discrimination/retaliation narratives).

9) The due process requirements: what employers must do before terminating for absences

A. For just cause termination (e.g., habitual absenteeism): the “twin notice” and opportunity to be heard

Philippine standards commonly require:

First written notice (Notice to Explain / Charge Sheet)
- Specifies the acts complained of (dates of absences, policy violated),
- Directs the employee to explain in writing,
- Provides a reasonable opportunity to respond (commonly understood in practice as at least around five calendar days).
Opportunity to be heard
- A hearing is not always a full trial, but there must be a fair chance to explain and present evidence.
- A conference/hearing becomes important when facts are disputed, when the employee requests it, or when fairness requires it.
Second written notice (Notice of Decision)
- States that grounds have been established,
- Explains why the employer rejects the employee’s explanations,
- Communicates the penalty (dismissal) and its effectivity.

Documentation matters: attendance records, timekeeping logs, return-to-work directives, leave filings, prior warnings, medical certificates, and minutes of conference.

B. For authorized cause termination (including disease): notice to employee and DOLE

For authorized causes, the standard procedural requirement is a written notice to both:

The affected employee, and
The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE),

typically at least 30 days before the effective date, plus payment of required separation pay (where applicable).

C. What if the employer has a valid ground but skips procedure?

Even when a substantive ground exists, failure to observe due process can expose the employer to liability (commonly framed as nominal damages), and in some cases can undermine the employer’s position depending on the circumstances and evidence.

10) Progressive discipline and company policy: how they interact with legality

Many employers implement a progression (verbal warning → written warning → suspension → dismissal). This is not always strictly required by statute for every offense, but it often:

Demonstrates fairness and proportionality,
Strengthens proof of “habitual” neglect,
Reduces claims of arbitrariness or unequal treatment.

However:

If a handbook says progressive discipline will be followed, deviating from it without justification can weaken the employer’s case.
Conversely, if policy treats certain repeated offenses as terminable after defined steps, employers must still prove the steps were complied with and due process was observed.

11) Typical defenses and issues raised in absenteeism termination disputes

For employees:

Absences were covered by approved leave or protected statutory leave
Medical necessity supported by credible documents
Improper denial of leave (arbitrary or discriminatory)
Lack of notice or inability to comply due to emergency
Inconsistent enforcement (others not penalized similarly)
Condonation/waiver (employer tolerated the pattern without action until suddenly dismissing)
No willfulness (for disobedience-based theory)
No habituality/grossness (for neglect-based theory)
Procedural defects (no proper notices, no real chance to explain)

For employers:

Clear attendance policy communicated to employee
Accurate records and specific dates
Repeated violations despite written warnings
Operational impact
Proper due process and documented evaluation of the employee’s explanations

12) Remedies and exposure if dismissal is found illegal

If dismissal is declared illegal, typical exposure includes:

Reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and
Full backwages from dismissal to reinstatement (or finality, depending on circumstances),
Or separation pay in lieu of reinstatement when reinstatement is no longer viable,
Possible damages in appropriate cases, and
Attorney’s fees when awarded under applicable standards.

If the ground is valid but procedure was defective, awards may be limited to nominal damages depending on the classification of termination and governing jurisprudential standards.

13) Practical compliance map (Philippine context)

For employers (risk control checklist)

Ensure the attendance policy is clear, reasonable, and acknowledged.
Maintain reliable timekeeping and leave records.
Distinguish unauthorized absences from protected leave and medically supported incapacity.
Use progressive discipline where policy/CBAs expect it and where it supports “habituality.”
Issue a detailed Notice to Explain with a fair response period.
Hold a conference/hearing where needed; document it.
Issue a reasoned Notice of Decision tied to evidence.
If disease is involved, use the disease termination track only when legal prerequisites (including required certification) are met and pay statutory separation pay.
Apply rules consistently to avoid discrimination and unfair labor practice narratives.

For employees (self-protection checklist)

File leave promptly when possible; communicate emergencies as soon as practicable.
Keep copies of leave filings, approvals, and medical documents.
Respond fully to notices; request a conference if facts are disputed.
Clarify whether absences should be charged to SIL, sick leave, or statutory leave.
Avoid gaps that can be painted as “AWOL” or “abandonment,” especially failing to respond to return-to-work directives.

14) Bottom line principles

Repeated absences can justify dismissal only when they fit a lawful ground (often gross and habitual neglect or willful disobedience) and are supported by evidence of unauthorized, patterned misconduct.
Leave credits and statutory leaves matter: absences covered by lawful leave are not supposed to be penalized as misconduct.
Medical situations change the analysis: illness may negate willfulness and may require the disease-termination framework rather than a fault-based dismissal.
Due process is not optional: valid grounds without proper notices and a real opportunity to explain create significant legal exposure.