“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", "Phil Labor for managers absences", "labor code of the philippines aginst employee due to absenteeism", "termination law cases in philippines", "philippine labor cases on habitual tardiness and absenteeism", "Philippine department of labor law on habitual absenses", "labor code philippines on absences", "Absenteeism in the philippines workplace", "dismiss casesphillipines", "department of labor study absenteeism allowable"