Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the right of a company to suspend an employee who blocked the firm’s access to the software he created for the firm.
In a decision, the SC said that under the Labor Code, an employer can preventively suspend an employee, without pay, for up to 30 days if the employee’s presence poses a threat to the company or its property.
It said the preventive suspension is not a punishment but a precautionary measure, and the suspended employee is not entitled to receive salaries and benefits for the duration of the suspension period.
In the decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC ruled that JGC Philippines, Inc. (JGC) validly placed Santiago DJ. Sillano, a senior engineer, on preventive suspension while investigating his actions.
A summary of the decision issued by the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson stated that Sillano developed several software programs while working under JGC.
When a dispute arose over who owned the software, Sillano claimed it was his, while JGC said it belonged to the company.
Because of the dispute, Sillano activated security features that made the programs unusable.
JGC responded by suspending Sillano and asking him to explain. It demanded that Sillano unlock the programs and turn over the source codes. He refused and countered that JGC has not proven ownership of the software.
JGC then suspended Sillano for disobedience and filed a complaint against him for violating his employment contract.
In response, Sillano sued JGC for illegal dismissal and suspension. He also filed a case before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which later ruled that he owned the software.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of JGC, finding the dismissal valid.
However, both the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) disagreed and ruled that while JGC was justified in suspending Sillano, firing him was not legal.
Sillano challenged his preventive suspension before the SC which affirmed the CA’s ruling.
