“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", "absences NLRC illegal dismissal", "TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT DUE TO HABITUAL ABSENCES", "supreme court in the philippines ruling regarding on termination due absences", "managing sickness abences philippines", "labor laws of the Philippines habitual tardiness and absences", "labor code philippines absences", "labor code on absenteeism manila", "labor code of the philippines HABITUal absences"