By Intellegal Editorial Board · February 17, 2021

Petitioner
Jerry E. Almogera, Jr.
Respondent
A & L Fishpond
Citation
G.R. No. 247428
Court
Supreme Court
Decided
February 17, 2021

Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed for being absent without official leave (AWOL) for 11 days without proper leave application

Summary

This labor case involved the dismissal of Jerry Almogera, Jr., a harvester at A & L Fishpond, for being absent without official leave for 11 days. Almogera claimed he had verbal permission from his supervisor, but the company's written policy required formal leave applications 5 days in advance. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled the dismissal illegal, but the NLRC, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court all found the dismissal valid. The Supreme Court held that Almogera's failure to follow reasonable company leave policies constituted willful disobedience, a just cause for termination under the Labor Code. The Court emphasized that employers may implement reasonable work rules and that procedural due process was satisfied through proper notice requirements. Almogera was only entitled to service incentive leave pay, not reinstatement or other monetary benefits reserved for illegally dismissed employees.

Focus of dispute

Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed for being absent without official leave (AWOL) for 11 days without proper leave application

Legal facts

Petitioner Jerry E. Almogera, Jr. was hired by A & L Fishpond and Hatchery, Inc. as an all-around harvester in October 2013 with daily wage of P318.00. On January 5, 2017, he allegedly sought verbal permission from supervisor Manuel Cruzada for 11-day leave from January 6-16, 2017 for family emergency in Naga. Upon returning to work January 25, 2017, he received termination notice for absences without official leave, was placed under preventive suspension, and was formally dismissed January 30, 2017 for violating company's Code of Discipline regarding AWOL.

Judgement and reasoning

Court of Appeals (CA): Upheld NLRC's findings on November 12, 2018, affirming petitioner was validly dismissed for being AWOL for 11 days. Found petitioner's failure to comply with company leave application rules amounted to willful disobedience, a just cause for termination. Noted procedural due process was followed with proper notices given to petitioner.

Labor Arbiter (LA): Ruled in favor of petitioner on August 24, 2017, finding illegal dismissal due to respondents' failure to prove petitioner was furnished copy of Code of Discipline or made aware of its contents. Awarded backwages (P72,635.96), separation pay (P33,072.00), and service incentive leave pay (P4,770.00). Dismissed other claims for lack of merit.

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): Reversed LA's decision on December 29, 2017, except for service incentive leave pay award. Found petitioner validly dismissed for just cause - violation of reasonable company rules on leave application. Ruled petitioner's failure to file required Vacation Leave Form constituted AWOL justifying dismissal. Found due process was observed as petitioner was given opportunity to explain but chose not to respond.

Supreme Court (SC): Denied petition and affirmed CA decision on February 17, 2021. Found petitioner validly dismissed for willful disobedience - his unauthorized prolonged absence violated reasonable company rules that were made known to him. Ruled company's leave application requirement was lawful and reasonable to maintain business efficiency. Found procedural due process was satisfied through twin-notice requirement. Sustained award of service incentive leave pay only, as other monetary awards are reserved for illegally dismissed employees.

Related cases

Other Philippine cases on the same provisions and issues.

Search Philippine case law on Intellegal →
AI-assisted case analysis — for research only. Verify against the official decision. A research aid, not legal advice; using this page creates no attorney-client relationship. For legal advice, consult a Philippine lawyer. Verify every holding and citation against the official decision (Supreme Court E-Library / Official Gazette) before relying on it.