AWOL vs Abandonment: When Reinstatement and Backwages Still Apply

In a 1999 decision, the Supreme Court drew a clear line between two often-confused grounds for dismissing an employee: absence without leave (AWOL) and abandonment of work. The case of Metro Transit Organization, Inc. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 119724, May 31, 1999) reminds employers that while both involve unauthorized absences, only abandonment—which requires a clear intent to sever the employment relationship—can justify dismissal. The Court ordered the employee reinstated with full backwages, but not without a penalty: three months' suspension for his AWOL.

The Facts of the Case

Victorio Turing was a train operator for Metro Transit Organization, a subsidiary of the Light Rail Transit Authority. In January 1990, he was suspended for three days after incurring ten days of unauthorized absences in December 1989. A month later, he applied for and was granted three days of leave (February 17, 20, and 21, 1990). When his leave expired, he failed to report back.

The company sent a social worker to his home on March 6, 1990. Turing was not there but had gone to Calamba, Laguna. That same day, he informed the company he would report for work on March 15. He actually returned earlier, on March 12, explaining that he had been absent due to serious domestic problems—his wife had left him and their six children.

Despite this, the company dismissed Turing on March 29, 1990 for abandonment of work. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The Issue

Was Turing guilty of abandonment of work, which would justify his dismissal? Or was he merely absent without leave, which might warrant a lesser penalty?

The Ruling: Abandonment Requires Intent to Quit

The Supreme Court ruled that Turing was not guilty of abandonment. For abandonment to be a valid ground for dismissal, the Court explained, two elements must concur:

1. Failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and
2. A clear and unequivocal intent to sever the employment relationship—this second element is the more decisive factor.

The burden of proving abandonment rests on the employer. In this case, the company failed to show any overt act by Turing indicating he intended to give up his job. To the contrary, the evidence showed the opposite: he told the social worker he would return, he actually reported for work on March 12, he wrote letters expressing regret for his absences, and he promptly filed an illegal dismissal complaint. The Court noted that a timely filing of an illegal dismissal case negates abandonment.

But AWOL Is a Different Matter

The Court, however, did not let Turing off entirely. It held that while his absences did not amount to abandonment, he was nonetheless guilty of absence without leave. No matter how serious his marital problems were, Turing had no excuse for failing to inform his employer of the reason for his absence after his approved leave expired. This was especially significant because he had been suspended just a month earlier for the same offense.

The Court therefore modified the NLRC's ruling: instead of outright dismissal, Turing was suspended for three months (from March 29 to June 26, 1990). He was ordered reinstated with full backwages from June 27, 1990 up to actual reinstatement, under R.A. No. 6715, which took effect on March 21, 1989. The backwages cover the period from illegal dismissal to actual reinstatement, minus the three-month suspension period, and include allowances and other benefits without deducting earnings from other employment.

Practical Takeaways

• Abandonment is harder to prove than AWOL. Employers must show not just unauthorized absences, but a deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume work, evidenced by overt acts.
• A timely complaint for illegal dismissal negates abandonment. An employee who files a case soon after dismissal shows no intent to sever the relationship.
• AWOL alone may not justify dismissal. In this case, the Court imposed a three-month suspension instead—even though the employee had a prior suspension for the same offense.
• Employers must exert genuine efforts to locate the employee. A home visit or notice is not enough; the surrounding circumstances must be carefully weighed.
• Backwages under R.A. No. 6715 are full, not partial. They run from illegal dismissal to actual reinstatement, without deduction of earnings from other sources.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.