“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", "2015 philippine labor law on frequent absenteeism and awol", "habitual absences and tardiness of employees in labor code", "2015 particular philippine labor law on habitual absenteeism", "philippine labor code absences", "labor gov com offense for absentism", "habitual absenteeism phil labor", "dole absenteeism", "department of labor employee absenteeism", "philippine labor law on constructive dismissal"