“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", "absentism valid cause", "philippine labor law about absences from work", "Phil Labor for managers absences", "Absenteeism in the philippines workplace", "laws on dismissal due to excessive absences", "dismiss casesphillipines", "Absenteeism under philippine labor code", "absenteeism laws in school in the philippines", "absenteeism law in the philippines"