Detention and Absences: When Prolonged AWOL Is Not Abandonment

Detention and Absences: When Prolonged AWOL Is Not Abandonment

What happens when an employee stops reporting for work — not out of choice, but because he is in jail? Can the employer treat the prolonged absence as abandonment and terminate the employment? In Asian Terminals, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (G.R. No. 158458, December 19, 2007), the Supreme Court clarified the rules on abandonment and protected employees who are absent due to baseless detention.

The Facts of the Case

Romeo Labrague worked as a stevedore for Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI) since the 1980s. In September 1993, he stopped reporting for work because he was arrested and detained for a criminal charge unrelated to his employment. After more than a year of absence, ATI sent him notices requiring him to explain his prolonged absence. In February 1995, ATI terminated him for absence without official leave (AWOL), noting in its own memorandum that he had been "put behind bars" due to his involvement in a killing incident.

Labrague was eventually acquitted and released. When he reported back for work in July 1996, ATI told him to file a new application instead of reinstating him. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether Labrague's prolonged absence due to detention amounted to abandonment of his employment, which would justify his dismissal.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal. Abandonment requires two elements: (1) the employee failed to report for work without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) there was a clear intention to sever the employment relationship, shown by overt acts. The second element is the more determinative factor.

The Court found that Labrague's absences were involuntary and excusable. He was prevented from reporting for work because of his detention, and the criminal charge against him was later dismissed for lack of evidence. The Court noted that ATI itself acknowledged in its termination memorandum that it knew Labrague was detained. His absence was not coupled with any intention to abandon his job.

Citing earlier cases such as Magtoto v. NLRC and Pedroso v. Castro, the Court held that absences incurred by an employee who is detained on a baseless criminal charge do not constitute abandonment. Mere absence, even after notice to return, is not tantamount to abandonment.

Backwages Despite No Appeal

The Court also addressed a procedural point. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had not awarded backwages, and Labrague did not appeal that omission. The Court of Appeals, however, granted backwages. The Supreme Court upheld this, citing St. Michael's Institute v. Santos: an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to both reinstatement (or separation pay) and backwages as substantive rights under Article 279 of the Labor Code. These rights cannot be defeated by procedural lapses, and the appellate court may award them even if the employee did not appeal.

Liability of the Corporate Officer

One modification was made. The Court of Appeals had held Atty. Rodolfo G. Corvite, Jr., the company officer who signed the termination notice, solidarily liable with the corporation. The Supreme Court deleted this liability, ruling that a corporate officer cannot be held personally liable absent a distinct finding of bad faith or evident malice in terminating the employee.

Practical Takeaways

• Abandonment is about intent. An employer must prove both the employee's unjustified absence and a clear intention to quit. Absence alone, even after notice, is not enough.
• Detention on a baseless charge excuses absence. If an employee is detained and later acquitted or the case dismissed for lack of evidence, the absences are involuntary and excusable.
• Know what the employer knew. The employer's own documents can be powerful evidence. In this case, the termination memorandum itself proved the employer knew of the detention.
• Backwages are a substantive right. Even if an employee does not appeal a decision that omits backwages, the appellate court may still award them as a legal consequence of illegal dismissal.
• Corporate officers are not automatically liable. Personal liability for monetary awards requires proof of bad faith or malice, not merely signing a termination notice.

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