“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 absenteeism", "absenteeism in the philippines", "habitual absenteeism of employees philippine labor", "absenteeism in the phil", "philippine labor law on absences", "Philippine labor law of habitual absences of employee?", "notice of leave and absences philippine labor code", "philippine labor law absenteeism", "absenteeism as grounds for dismissal in the philippines"