“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", "habitual absences and tardiness of employees in labor code", "department of labor employee absenteeism", "habitual absenteeism phil labor", "ph labor law regarding dismissal", "philippine labor code absences", "philippine labor law on constructive dismissal", "termination due to excessive absences Philippines"