“In this case, the only basis of respondents in terminating the services of petitioners is that they incurred absences in 1997, in excess of the allowed number, despite a previous warning for their absences in 1996 and 1995. We find that in this case, termination is not a commensurate penalty. Even assuming that petitioners’ absenteeism constitutes willful disobedience, such offense does not warrant their dismissal.”
Topics in this post:
"labor code of the philippines insubordination", "philippine labor law on termination by absentism", "habitual absenteeism philippine csc cases", "supreme court decisions on termination due to excessive absences philippines", "philippine labor rule on termination due to sickness", "philippine labor law termination due to absenteeism", "philippine labor law on termination due to absenteeism", "absences from work philippines", "labor law philippines dismissal", "habitual absences according to labor laws"