The Philippine Supreme Court has ruled that an employee’s prolonged, unauthorized absences are not by themselves enough to justify dismissal for abandonment of work, reversing earlier findings by labor authorities and the Court of Appeals in a case involving agricultural firm Green Era Biotech and its manpower service provider, Great Value. In an 18-page decision dated Nov. 19 and issued by the tribunal’s Third Division, the high court found the two companies liable for the illegal dismissal of a production utility worker who had been absent from work for at least 18 days in 2018.

The worker, initially hired by Green Era Biotech in 2015 and later transferred to Great Value, was first absent for eight consecutive days due to illness. Great Value required him to explain his unauthorized absences, citing a company policy that allowed dismissal for at least five days of unexplained absence. He later incurred another nine straight days of absence, prompting the issuance of an absence without leave (AWOL) notice that characterized his conduct as serious misconduct and abandonment of work. After taking another leave with his supervisor’s permission, he was barred from entering the workplace and informed by his foreman that he had been declared AWOL, leading him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.

In overturning the earlier rulings of the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court stressed that abandonment as a just cause for dismissal has two elements: absence without a valid reason and a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employment relationship. The Court underscored that the second element is the more critical requirement and that the burden of proving both elements rests with the employer. “Mere absence from work, without more, will ordinarily fail to support a finding of abandonment of work, absent any overt act from the employee clearly showing that he or she intends to sever his or her employment,” the decision said.

While the justices acknowledged that the worker’s absences were “clearly unauthorized,” they found no evidence that he intended to abandon his job, noting instead that he had attempted to return to work and promptly challenged his dismissal before the labor tribunal. The Court ruled that his conduct did not amount to a “deliberate and unjustified refusal” to resume employment and that his absences did not merit the “severe penalty of dismissal.” It ordered his reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority and privileges, though without back wages, and held Green Era Biotech and Great Value jointly liable to pay separation pay if reinstatement is no longer feasible, along with nominal damages of 30,000 pesos.

Le tribunal correctionnel de Paris a condamné six hommes, issus de la mouvance d’ultradroite pronazie, à des peines allant jusqu’à sept ans de prison pour un vaste trafic d’armes. Cinq d’entre eux, âgés de 22 à 25 ans, ont été reconnus coupables d’association de malfaiteurs terroriste, au terme d’un procès ouvert le 23 juin et clos vendredi 3 juillet après huit jours d’audience. Les juges ont retenu l’existence d’un réseau structuré gravitant autour de l’extrême droite la plus radicale, où la circulation d’armes côtoyait des projets de violences ciblées.

Selon l’enquête, ce noyau de sympathisants néonazis nourrissait des projets violents visant des juifs, des musulmans, la communauté LGBTQ+ ainsi que des militants de gauche. Parmi les cinq jeunes condamnés figurent deux anciens militaires, dont l’un a été décrit à l’audience comme le pivot du trafic. Cet ex-soldat, élevé dans un environnement marqué par l’antisémitisme et un traditionalisme catholique, a lui aussi écopé de sept ans de prison, mais sans période de sûreté, la procureure estimant qu’il avait en partie « évolué ».

La peine la plus lourde, sept ans de prison assortis d’une période de sûreté aux deux tiers et d’un suivi sociojudiciaire de six ans, a visé le plus jeune des prévenus. Né d’une mère japonaise et d’un père marocain, il a réaffirmé à l’audience son rejet du métissage, tout en expliquant avoir « délaissé certaines thèses » d’ultradroite mais en avoir « gardé d’autres ». Son attitude jugée particulièrement rigide a pesé dans la décision. Son avocate, Dominique Petit, a annoncé son intention de faire appel, ouvrant la voie à un possible second round judiciaire.

Le sixième homme, un policier retraité de 61 ans, a pour sa part été condamné à cinq ans de prison pour trafic d’armes, dont 25 mois assortis d’un sursis probatoire sur trois ans. Les magistrats ont souligné que l’enquête n’avait pas établi qu’il avait conscience d’alimenter des projets d’attentats. La partie ferme de sa peine sera purgée sous bracelet électronique. Ces condamnations, qui frappent un groupe mêlant civils, ex-militaires et ancien policier, illustrent la vigilance accrue de la justice française face aux dérives violentes de l’ultradroite radicale et à la circulation d’armes en marge des institutions.