G.R. No. 139847 ; March 5, 2004
Procter and Gamble Philippines, petitioner, vs. Edgardo Bondesto, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Edgardo Bondesto, a 19-year production technician for Procter and Gamble, was dismissed on June 23, 1994, for incurring 43 days of alleged unauthorized absences. The company policy stated that six continuous or ten total unauthorized absences in a year could be grounds for termination. Bondesto attributed his initial 17-day absence in February-March 1994 to following up the reimbursement of his work-related travel expenses at the company’s Makati office, which were delayed due to a bounced company check. The petitioner considered these absences unauthorized.
Subsequent absences from May 1994 stemmed from Bondesto’s illness. The company clinic refused to issue him a return-to-work permit, requiring instead a medical certificate from his previous surgeon, whom Bondesto could not locate. The company deemed these subsequent absences unauthorized as well. After receiving a notice to explain, Bondesto was terminated. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing his absences were justified.

ISSUE

Was Bondesto’s dismissal for unauthorized absences valid and legal?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that Bondesto was illegally dismissed. The legal logic hinges on the employer’s failure to satisfy the twin requirements of substantive and procedural due process. Substantively, the absences were not proven to be without justifiable cause. The Court found that Bondesto’s initial absences were incurred while diligently pursuing the reimbursement of company-related expenses, an act ultimately for the employer’s benefit. His subsequent absences were due to a legitimate illness, and the company clinic’s refusal to clear him for work, despite his efforts to comply, could not be arbitrarily held against him. The employer failed to establish that the absences were willful or incurred without justifiable reason.
Procedurally, the dismissal was defective. The notice to explain dated June 3, 1994, cited only 35 days of absence. The termination letter dated June 22, 1994, however, cited a new total of 43 days, adding 8 days (June 6-15) that were not included in the original charge. Bondesto was not given an opportunity to explain these additional 8 days, violating his right to due process. Consequently, the dismissal was illegal. The Court affirmed the appellate decision ordering Bondesto’s reinstatement with full backwages, or separation pay and one year backwages if reinstatement was no longer feasible.