AWOL and Fraud Charges by a Former Employer

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific concerns and circumstances, it is best to consult a licensed attorney in the Philippines.

Introduction

In the Philippine employment landscape, issues regarding Absence Without Leave (AWOL) and potential charges of fraud often raise significant concerns both for employees and employers. Understanding the legal definitions, procedures, and possible remedies or liabilities is essential for navigating the workplace and avoiding adverse consequences. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of AWOL and possible fraud charges initiated by a former employer under Philippine law.

I. Defining AWOL (Absence Without Leave)

  1. Meaning of AWOL

    • “AWOL” typically refers to an instance (or series of instances) where an employee fails to report to work or is absent without a valid or approved leave of absence.
    • The Labor Code of the Philippines does not specifically use the term “AWOL.” Instead, it uses concepts such as unauthorized absences, abandonment, or violation of company rules regarding attendance.

  2. Key Elements of AWOL

    • Lack of Official Leave Approval: The employee has not filed a leave application, or if filed, it was not approved by the employer.
    • Unexplained or Unauthorized Absence: There is no valid excuse given within a reasonable time.
    • Duration of Absence: While a single day of unauthorized absence can be considered AWOL under company policy, prolonged absence can have more serious ramifications.

  3. AWOL vs. Abandonment of Work

    • Abandonment is a severe form of absenteeism. Under jurisprudence, abandonment requires:
      1. The failure to report for work or absence without valid reason.
      2. Clear intent to sever the employer-employee relationship.
    • Mere absence or failure to report for a few days (even if unauthorized) does not necessarily constitute abandonment. The employee’s intent is crucial.
    • Employers who wish to dismiss an employee on grounds of abandonment must show overt acts indicating that the employee no longer intends to return to work (e.g., ignoring return-to-work notices).

  4. Common Reasons Leading to AWOL

    • Personal emergencies or family issues.
    • Health concerns without prompt notification to the employer.
    • Sudden loss of interest in the job or conflict with management.
    • Miscommunication or misunderstanding regarding leave policies.

II. Legal Consequences of AWOL

  1. Employer’s Disciplinary Action

    • Employers typically include AWOL as a ground for disciplinary measures in their Code of Conduct or Company Handbook.
    • Sanctions range from written reprimands or suspension to termination for repeated or extended AWOL.

  2. Due Process Requirements

    • Even if an employee has been AWOL, Philippine law requires due process before imposing termination or other severe sanctions.
    • Under the Labor Code and related Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Agabon v. NLRC), employers must provide:
      1. A notice to explain (sometimes called a “show-cause notice”).
      2. An opportunity for the employee to respond.
      3. A notice of decision detailing the penalties.
    • Failure to observe procedural due process could lead to a finding of illegal dismissal, even if the substantive ground (AWOL) is proven.

  3. Legal Remedies for Employees

    • If an employee feels they were unjustly terminated for AWOL—perhaps they had a valid reason or the employer failed to follow due process—they may file a complaint for illegal dismissal at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
    • Remedies can include reinstatement and back wages, depending on the circumstances and NLRC or judicial findings.

  4. Impact on Final Pay and Clearance

    • Employers may put an employee’s final pay, certificate of employment, and other clearances on hold pending investigation of AWOL or resolution of disciplinary proceedings.
    • However, an employee is still entitled to all earned wages and monetary benefits (e.g., 13th-month pay prorated, unused leave conversions) even if dismissed for cause.

III. Fraud Charges by a Former Employer

  1. Definition of Fraud in Employment Context

    • While “fraud” can be broad, in an employment setting, it commonly refers to acts such as:
      • Falsification of documents (e.g., time records, expense reports).
      • Misappropriation of company funds or property.
      • Dishonesty or deceit leading to potential financial or reputational harm to the employer.
    • In the Philippines, fraud could subject an individual to administrative, civil, or criminal liability, depending on the nature and gravity of the act.

  2. Criminal Liability for Fraud

    • Former employers can file a criminal complaint against an ex-employee if they suspect or discover fraudulent acts committed during the period of employment.
    • Common legal bases include:
      • Qualified Theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), if property or money was stolen through abuse of confidence.
      • Estafa (Swindling) under Article 315 of the RPC, if the employee employed deceit or abuse of confidence causing damage or prejudice.
      • Falsification of documents under Article 172 of the RPC.
    • If a criminal case is found to have probable cause, it proceeds to trial, and the ex-employee faces potential penalties under the Revised Penal Code, which may include imprisonment, fines, or both.

  3. Civil Liability for Fraud

    • Beyond criminal charges, employers may institute a civil case to seek restitution or damages for losses caused by the employee’s fraudulent acts.
    • If the employee is found civilly liable, the court may order payment of actual damages (e.g., lost funds) and, in some instances, moral and exemplary damages if bad faith is proven.

  4. Administrative Cases Post-Employment

    • While the employee-employer relationship is severed, administrative complaints (e.g., at the NLRC or certain government regulatory bodies) can still be pursued if the acts were committed during the period of employment and violate labor standards or relevant regulations.

  5. Proof and Burden of Evidence

    • In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
    • In civil proceedings, the standard is preponderance of evidence.
    • For labor administrative proceedings (if any remain relevant post-employment), the standard is often substantial evidence.

IV. How AWOL Interacts with Fraud Charges

  1. Concurrent or Separate Issues

    • AWOL in itself is not typically a criminal offense. An employer does not file “AWOL charges” in the criminal sense.
    • However, if an employee went AWOL to conceal or evade investigations into potential fraud or misconduct, the employer may suspect criminal wrongdoing.
    • The AWOL scenario could escalate if the employer uncovers anomalies in the employee’s records or transactions during the absence.

  2. Dismissal for AWOL vs. Fraud

    • An employer can dismiss an employee for AWOL if it violates company policy and meets the due process requirement.
    • Fraud, on the other hand, is generally considered a just cause for dismissal under Article 297 [formerly Article 282] of the Labor Code (i.e., serious misconduct, fraud, or willful breach of trust).
    • Even if an employer did not discover the fraud until after the employee resigned or went AWOL, the employer can still file charges or institute the proper legal remedies once the fraud is uncovered.

  3. Implications for Final Pay and Clearance

    • If the employee is suspected of fraud, the employer often withholds clearance and final benefits pending the outcome of an internal investigation or legal action.
    • The release of final pay might be delayed, but an employer must ensure it complies with the Labor Code’s provisions on payment of wages.
    • If the employer decides to pursue a civil or criminal case, the final pay and other amounts might be subject to legal garnishment or offset (where legally permissible) if damages are awarded against the employee.

V. Practical Considerations and Best Practices

  1. For Employees

    • Avoid AWOL: If an unforeseen emergency arises, inform the employer as soon as possible. Submit an official leave request or explanation.
    • Keep Documentation: Maintain copies of medical certificates, leave requests, email threads, or any communication demonstrating attempts to inform your employer.
    • Seek Legal Counsel if Accused of Fraud: Fraud allegations are serious; get assistance from a lawyer to handle both potential criminal complaints and civil or labor-related issues.

  2. For Employers

    • Have Clear Policies: Draft a comprehensive Code of Conduct outlining rules for attendance, leaves, and the disciplinary process.
    • Conduct an Investigation: Before labeling an absence as AWOL or accusing someone of fraud, gather evidence and provide due process.
    • Document Everything: From sending notices to investigating alleged misconduct, thorough documentation is crucial if disputes reach labor tribunals or courts.
    • Consider Alternative Dispute Resolution: If feasible, explore settlement or mediation options before resorting to litigation, especially for less severe disputes.

  3. When Facing a Former Employer’s Fraud Allegation

    • Cooperate Reasonably: Refusal to respond or clarify may lead the employer to escalate legal remedies.
    • Check Prescriptive Periods: Certain criminal and civil actions have deadlines (prescriptive periods). Consult a lawyer to confirm if a charge is still actionable.
    • Exercise Caution with Settlement Agreements: If the former employer proposes a settlement, thoroughly review the terms—particularly if it entails waiving certain legal defenses or rights.

VI. Relevant Legal References

  1. Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended):
    • Provisions on just causes of termination (e.g., serious misconduct, fraud, willful breach of trust).
    • Procedural requirements (due process).
  2. Revised Penal Code (RPC):
    • Articles 308, 310: Qualified Theft.
    • Article 315: Estafa.
    • Article 172: Falsification of documents.
  3. Supreme Court Decisions:
    • Agabon v. NLRC (G.R. No. 158693), which highlights the importance of substantive and procedural due process in termination cases.
    • Cases discussing the distinction between ordinary AWOL and abandonment (e.g., Blue Dairy Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 129843).

Conclusion

AWOL (Absence Without Leave) and allegations of fraud can significantly affect one’s employment status and post-employment legal exposure in the Philippines. While being AWOL typically leads to disciplinary action and possible termination (if due process is observed), suspected fraud can entail more severe consequences, potentially including criminal and civil liability. Both employers and employees should understand the applicable laws, maintain clear communication and proper documentation, and—where possible—seek legal guidance to protect their respective rights and interests.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login