Dear Attorney,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to seek your legal advice regarding a situation I am currently facing. Recently, I signed a contract with a company but was unable to finish the training that was required. I am now concerned whether my failure to complete the training could be considered as "absence without leave" (AWOL).

I would appreciate your professional insights on whether this situation could legally be categorized as AWOL under Philippine labor laws. Furthermore, I would like to understand the potential legal consequences of this in terms of my obligations under the contract, as well as any actions that the company could take against me. Could there be penalties, or might the company pursue further legal action in light of my early departure from training?

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. I look forward to your guidance and legal opinion on the best course of action.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Employee

AWOL and Failure to Complete Training: A Comprehensive Legal Examination under Philippine Law

In the Philippines, the concept of absence without leave (AWOL) is a term typically used in employment settings where an employee fails to report for work without notifying the employer or securing an official leave of absence. It is often associated with unauthorized abandonment of duty, and in certain cases, it can be grounds for disciplinary action, including termination of employment. However, the situation of an employee who signs a contract but fails to complete training introduces complexities that require a deeper understanding of contractual obligations and the nature of employment relationships.

1. Understanding AWOL in the Context of Philippine Labor Law

The term "AWOL" itself does not appear as a formal legal concept under the Labor Code of the Philippines. However, it is commonly understood within the framework of employment policies as a willful breach of the employee’s duty to report for work without permission. Under Article 282 (now Article 297) of the Labor Code, one of the just causes for termination of an employee is "gross and habitual neglect of duties," which may include instances of unauthorized absences, especially when they are protracted or when the employee fails to provide any reasonable explanation for their non-attendance.

If an employee is considered AWOL, this often results in immediate termination if the absences are significant or if the employment policies of the company dictate specific actions for AWOL cases. These policies are usually included in the company's employee handbook or codified in an employment contract. The employer may argue that an employee who fails to attend scheduled workdays or mandatory activities such as training without justification could be considered AWOL, but this depends largely on the terms stipulated in the contract and the employment arrangement.

2. Failure to Complete Training: Is it Considered AWOL?

To answer whether failing to complete training is the same as going AWOL, we must first look at the nature of the training and the contract the employee signed. If the training is a prerequisite for employment or is part of the initial onboarding process, failure to complete the training could be seen as a breach of the employment contract, but it is not necessarily classified as AWOL.

a. Nature of the Training Requirement
In many industries, training is an essential part of employment, especially in sectors like customer service, manufacturing, or specialized technical fields. The training might be classified as either:

Pre-employment training, where successful completion is a condition precedent for formal employment.
Post-employment training, where the employee is already hired, but further training is needed to fulfill their duties.

If the training is part of a pre-employment condition, failure to complete it does not yet constitute formal employment, and thus, being AWOL may not apply since the employment relationship has not been fully established. In this case, the issue might be a breach of contract for not fulfilling the conditions of employment rather than AWOL.

b. Contractual Obligations
A key consideration is whether the signed contract specifically outlines the training obligations and the consequences of failing to complete the training. Contracts in the Philippines are governed by the Civil Code, and under Article 1159, "Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith." If the contract clearly stipulates that the employee must complete the training before they can be considered officially employed, failure to do so might be viewed as non-compliance, which could give the company a right to seek damages or pursue legal recourse based on breach of contract.

Moreover, many companies include specific provisions related to training bonds or stipulations about the employee's duty to reimburse training costs if they leave prematurely. If such provisions are included in the contract, failing to complete the training could result in financial liabilities for the employee. These provisions are legally enforceable if they are reasonable and not overly burdensome, as per the Civil Code of the Philippines.

3. Company Policies and the Role of Good Faith

In the Philippines, employment policies are essential in determining the disciplinary action that an employer may take against an employee. While the concept of AWOL is commonly used in companies, its application is often subject to internal rules. These policies typically define the steps that need to be taken if an employee misses work or a mandatory event like training without permission. If the company’s employee handbook or policies treat failure to attend training as AWOL, this could result in disciplinary action, which might include termination.

It is also important to note that the employer and employee are bound by the principle of "good faith." Under Article 19 of the Civil Code, both parties must act with honesty and fairness towards each other. If the employee had a legitimate reason for not finishing the training (e.g., illness, personal emergency), the employer must take these circumstances into account before taking any drastic action such as declaring the employee AWOL.

4. Legal Recourse for the Employer: Breach of Contract vs. AWOL

In this situation, the employer has several potential courses of action depending on how the failure to complete training is framed. If the employee is considered AWOL, the company may initiate termination proceedings, particularly if the absence violates the company's internal policies or the terms of the employment contract. However, if the failure to complete training is framed as a breach of contract, the company might seek to enforce the terms of the contract, potentially seeking damages or compensation for the employee's non-compliance with the training requirement.

The enforceability of any penalties or training bonds would depend on the specific wording of the contract. If there is a clause that requires the employee to pay for the cost of the training in the event of non-completion or early resignation, the company could enforce this provision, provided that it is reasonable and does not violate public policy. Excessive penalties or unreasonable bond amounts could be struck down by the courts.

5. Practical Considerations and Employee Defenses

While employers have the right to enforce contractual obligations, employees also have certain defenses available to them in cases where they fail to complete training or are declared AWOL:

Legitimate reasons for non-attendance: If the employee had valid reasons for not attending the training (e.g., medical emergencies, family obligations), they could argue that their failure to attend was justified, and this should not result in termination or penalties.
Unreasonable or vague contract terms: If the contract was not clear on the consequences of failing to complete the training, the employee could argue that they were not properly informed of the penalties or obligations. Vague or unclear contract terms could be construed against the employer under the principle of contra proferentem, where any ambiguity in the contract is interpreted against the party that drafted it.

In practice, employers would need to demonstrate that the employee willfully ignored their obligation to complete training without any reasonable excuse. Otherwise, summary termination or enforcement of harsh penalties might be deemed unjust by labor tribunals.

Conclusion

The determination of whether failing to complete training can be considered AWOL largely depends on the specific terms of the contract, the company's internal policies, and the nature of the training. In many cases, failure to complete training is more appropriately categorized as a breach of contract rather than AWOL, especially if the training was a prerequisite for employment or part of the onboarding process. However, if the employer's policies explicitly treat failure to attend training as AWOL, disciplinary action could follow.

The best course of action for an employee in this situation would be to carefully review the terms of the contract and any company policies regarding attendance and training. It may also be prudent to communicate with the employer, explain the reasons for non-attendance, and attempt to negotiate a resolution to avoid potential legal action or penalties. For the employer, ensuring that the terms of the contract are clear and enforceable, and that any disciplinary measures are conducted in good faith, is crucial to avoiding labor disputes or claims of unjust termination.