“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 attendance", "2015 philippine labor law on frequent absenteeism and awol", "2015 particular philippine labor law on habitual absenteeism", "2015 philippine labor law on excessive absenteeism", "2015 philippine labor law on excessive tardiness", "dole absenteeism", "labor gov com offense for absentism", "termination due to absences"