San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC: When Dismissal for Unauthorized Absences Is Justified

The Supreme Court's 2008 decision in San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC clarifies an important point for both employers and employees: an employer's leniency in enforcing attendance rules does not forever bar it from imposing dismissal for repeated unauthorized absences. The case also distinguishes between a valid dismissal based on excessive absences and an invalid one based on unproven falsification charges.

The Facts of the Case

Ernesto Ibias worked for San Miguel Corporation (SMC) for nearly two decades. In 1997, company records showed he incurred multiple absences without permission (AWOPs) — fourteen in total. SMC's policy provided progressively increasing penalties, starting with written warnings and culminating in discharge for the ninth AWOP within a calendar year.

SMC also accused Ibias of falsifying his medical consultation card to make it appear he was on approved sick leave for some of his absences. After an administrative investigation, SMC dismissed him for excessive AWOPs and falsification of company records.

The Issue

The central question was whether Ibias was validly dismissed. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC said no, finding the dismissal disproportionate. The Court of Appeals agreed, noting that SMC had been lax in implementing its own disciplinary policy — Ibias received only warnings for absences that should have merited suspension.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Ibias was validly dismissed for his unauthorized absences.

First, the Court rejected the falsification charge. While the medical card contained falsified entries, SMC failed to prove through substantial evidence that Ibias himself made them. The testimonies of company witnesses were uncorroborated, and the employee who had custody of the medical cards was responsible for their safekeeping. Mere possession of a falsified document is not the same as falsification.

However, the unauthorized absences were a different matter. Ibias admitted to being absent without permission on several dates. He was warned early in the year that he already had six AWOPs. By June 1997, he had more than nine — the threshold for discharge under company policy.

The Court rejected the argument that SMC's leniency barred dismissal. What the lower tribunals called "laxity" was actually "leniency" that benefited the employee. An employer has the prerogative to impose sanctions lighter than those prescribed by its rules, or even to condone violations entirely. This prerogative is part of management's right to control and manage its business effectively.

The Court emphasized that an employee who knows the number of AWOPs incurred cannot use the employer's failure to suspend him as a license to incur more. When SMC finally imposed dismissal for the twelfth and thirteenth AWOPs, it acted within its rights.

Practical Takeaways

• Employers may be lenient without losing the right to discipline later. A company's failure to impose the exact penalty in its policy does not waive its right to impose a higher penalty for subsequent violations, provided the employee was warned.
• Substantial evidence is enough for dismissal. In labor cases, employers need not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt — only substantial evidence, which is the least demanding evidentiary standard.
• Falsification requires proof of authorship. An employer cannot dismiss an employee for falsified documents merely because the employee possessed them; it must prove the employee made the false entries.
• Employees should file leave documents promptly. Medical certificates or barangay certifications presented only during litigation, and never submitted to the employer, cannot excuse unauthorized absences.
• Repeated absences with notice can justify termination. When an employee is warned about the number of AWOPs and continues incurring them, dismissal may be a valid exercise of management prerogative.

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