Saturday, April 05, 2008 Almirante: Justified absence By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
PETITIONER Alberto Navarro, a forklift operator of respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc., did not report to work on Aug. 11, 1997 because of heavy rains, which flooded the entire barangay where he resided. He submitted a written explanation, accompanied by a certification from his barangay captain that, indeed, there was heavy rains and subsequent flooding that hit the barangay.
On Aug. 12, 1997, the day following his absence, he filed an application for leave of absence. Despite his explanation, he was given a notice of termination, which enumerated the dates of his absences without permission. Was the dismissal legal?
Ruling: No.
On this point, we are in agreement that petitioner’s application for leave should have been approved by the company. His absence was due to a fortuitous event outside of petitioner’s control.
In our view, petitioner had no wrongful, perverse or even negligent attitude, intended to defy the order of his employer when he absented himself. He did so because heavy rains flooded their residential area, which was along the railroad. In his favor, the barangay captain certified that, indeed, there was flooding in their place of residence.
A worker cannot be reasonably expected to anticipate times of sickness nor emergency. Hence, to require prior notice of such times would be absurd. He can only give proper notice after the occurrence of the event—which is what petitioner did in this case.
In earlier cases, we have expressed disapproval of dismissal of employees who have absented themselves due to emergency circumstances. In Brew Master International Inc. versus National Federation of Labor Unions (NAFLU), G.R. No. 119243, April 17, 1997, 271 SCRA 275, the employee’s absence was precipitated by a grave family problem when his wife unexpectedly deserted him and abandoned the family. Under said circumstances, his absence was deemed justified.
Similarly, in this case, the reason for petitioner’s absence was not of his own doing much less to his liking, thus we are of the view that he did not merit the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service. (Alberto Navarro versus Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc. et. al. G.R. No. June 8, 2007)
