Photo from Pexels | Pavel Danilyuk
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Preventive suspension is not a penalty but a disciplinary measure to protect life or property of the employer or the co-workers pending investigation of any alleged infraction committed by the employee. Thus, it is justified only when the employee’s continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the employer’s or co-workers’ life or property. When justified, the preventively suspended employee is not entitled to the payment of his salaries and benefits for the period of suspension.
JGC Philippines, Inc. (JGC) is engaged in the business of design engineering and construction management. On June 1, 1994, it employed Sillano as Junior Engineer.
During his employment with JGC, Sillano developed several computer programs. Sometime in January 2004, Sillano and JGC began their dispute as to the ownership of the subject computer programs. Sillano claimed ownership as the program’s creator; while JGC, on the other hand, countered that it was the owner since Sillano created them within the course of his employment Thereafter, Sillano activated the security features of the program, making them inaccessible and ineffective for JGC’s business projects.
On January 14, 2004, JGC served upon Sillano Notice to Explain (NTE) and Notice of Preventive Suspension in relation to the unauthorized destruction, tampering, taking or concealment of company records; and failure to comply with official orders and/or perform regular assigned duties or specific instructions related to his duties. On January 15, 2004, a demand letter was sent by JGC to Sillano directing him to unlock the security features of the subject computer programs. On the same day, Sillano submitted his written explanation, averring that as a compromise, he would adjust the time-lock mechanism of the programs; however, he refused to remove the security features altogether.
On January 22, 2004, JGC issued a Final Demand to Unlock the Security Features and Turnover the Source Codes and Related Documentation of the programs. On January 27, 2004, Sillano contested his preventive suspension considering JGC had yet to establish its ownership over the same. On February 16, 2004, JGC sent Sillano a Notice of Termination, citing willful disobedience of its lawful and reasonable orders in connection with his duties.
On March 15, 2004, JGC filed a complaint for breach of employment agreement against Sillano before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). For his part, Sillano filed an administrative complaint against JGC before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and a criminal complaint for violation of Section 217 of the Intellectual Property Code against JGC. On the same day, Sillano filed the instant Complaint against JGC before the NLRC.
In his Complaint before the NLRC, Sillano sought relief for illegal dismissal; illegal suspension; unpaid wages; actual, moral, and exemplary damages; and attorney’s fees. According to Sillano, his refusal to obey JGC’s order to remove the security features of his programs was based on his claim of ownership over the same; thus, JGC illegally dismissed him.
For its part, JGC countered that it was the owner of the programs since Sillano created them in the course of his employment using company facilities and resources. JGC averred that as the owner of the programs, it could order Sillano to remove its security features and unlock the same. JGC claimed that Sillano’s refusal to comply with its lawful order constitutes insubordination, which was a ground for dismissal.
Both parties presented Certificates of Copyright Registration and Deposit of the programs under their respective names.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that Sillano’s dismissal is with a just cause and that the procedural due process was complied. Consequently, the complaint filed by Sillano for illegal dismissal was dismissed including his monetary claims, attorney’s fees and damages.
Sillano appealed before the NLRC and attached to his appeal an Order issued by the IPO issuing a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against JGC to desist from using, copying, reproducing, and modifying the programs created by Sillano.
On June 27, 2008, the NLRC dismissed Sillano’s appeal on the ground of non-perfection as the appeal failed to attach a Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. Thereafter, Sillano filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the NLRC which denied the same.
Thus, Sillano filed an earlier Petition for Certiorari before the CA. However, the CA rendered a Decision ordering the remand of the case to the NLRC for the determination of the case on the merits. Said Decision became final and executory on October 13, 2009.
On April 10, 2019, the records of the case were endorsed to the NLRC’s Second Division. Several conferences were held to discuss the possibility of amicable settlement but to no avail.
On the other hand, on November 25, 2011, the IPO issued an Alias Writ of Execution implementing its September 28, 2007 Decision.
NLRC reversed the LA’s Decision and held that Silano’s preventive suspension was valid but nevertheless he was illegally dismissed. Finding JGC to have illegally dismissed Sillano, the NLRC ordered payment of separation pay and backwages. Both parties thereafter filed their respective Motions for Partial Reconsideration; however, the NLRC denied the same. Thus, the case was elevated to the CA.
CA held that NLRC correctly ruled that Sillano’s preventive suspension was valid. The ownership of the computer program was not yet ascertained at the time of the suspension. Thus, Sillano’s acts to restrict access to the same posed a serious and imminent threat to what his employer, JGC, deemed to be its property pending investigation and a definitive ruling from IPO on the copyright ownership of the subject programs.
Consequently, based on the foregoing, the CA denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC petition.
Aggrieved, Sillano sought for reconsideration. However, the CA denied the same. Thus, We resolve the present case.
The issue is whether the preventive suspension of Sillano was legal.
THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES
The Supreme Court denied Silano’s petition, finding no error in the CA’s decision.
In review of labor cases, factual findings of the labor tribunals which are affirmed by the CA are not only afforded with great weight and respect but also conclusive to this Court. Only in exceptional circumstances will this Court deviate from the established rules and conduct its own review to serve the ends of justice. Such is not obtaining in the present case.
The question on the validity of Sillano’s preventive suspension has already been resolved by both the NLRC and the CA. The requirements for a valid imposition of preventive suspension were complied with in the present case. Preventive suspension is not a penalty but a disciplinary measure to protect life or property of the employer or the co-workers pending investigation of any alleged infraction committed by the employee. Thus, it is justified only when the employee’s continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the employer’s or co-workers’ life or property. When justified, the preventively suspended employee is not entitled to the payment of his salaries and benefits for the period of suspension.
At the time when JGC imposed the preventive suspension, there was still no IPO ruling on who is the owner of the subject programs. As such, when JGC, acting as the owner of the subject programs, was asking for the turnover of the source codes from Sillano and he did not obey, it was viewed as a serious and imminent threat to their property as their access was restricted. Thus, at the time when Sillano was preventively suspended, JGC had a valid ground to do so.
The CA also correctly ruled that the preventive suspension did not exceed the 30-day limit provided under the Labor Code. As stated in Section 9 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, “No preventive suspension shall last longer than 30 days. The employer shall thereafter reinstate the worker in his former or in a substantially equivalent position or the employer may extend the period of suspension provided that during the period of extension, he pays the wages and other benefits due to the worker.”
Sillano was preventively suspended starting on January 14, 2004, when he received the NTE and Notice of Preventive Suspension. It must be noted that the 30-day period ended on a Friday, February 13, 2004. Thus, immediately on the next working day, which is February 16, 2004 (Monday), JGC already resolved the issue and terminated Sillano’s employment. Taking note of this circumstance, this Court agrees with the CA that it is still within the prescribed period.
Anent the moral and exemplary damages, as well as the attorney’s fees, the CA found that there was no sufficient evidence showing the circumstances and such claims were not even included in his Complaint and thus, fair play dictates that these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Moreover, Sillano cannot make a sweeping conclusion that just because his appeal was granted, then all his benefits should have been granted too. Still, he must prove that he is entitled to the benefits and damages he is claiming, and that evidence must still be presented to support these claims; otherwise, the same cannot be awarded.
Hence, Silano’s petition is denied, finding no error in the CA’s decision.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
Leave a Reply