Saturday, August 04, 2007 Preventive suspension By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
ON April 11, 1996, the concentrator maintenance supervisor of petitioner Maricalum Mining Corp. called a meeting which respondent Antonio Decorion failed to attend as he was then supervising the workers under him. Because of his alleged insubordination, he was placed under preventive suspension on the same day. He was also not allowed to report for work the following day. Was the suspension justified?
Ruling: No.
The rules are explicit that preventive suspension is justified where the employee’s continued employment poses as serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of the employee’s co-workers. Without this kind of threat, preventive suspension is not proper.
In this case, Decorion was suspended only because he failed to attend a meeting called by his supervisor. There is no evidence to indicate that his failure to attend the meeting prejudiced his employer or that his presence in the company’s premises posed a serious threat to his employer and co-workers. The preventive suspension was clearly unjustified.
What is more, Decorion’s suspension persisted beyond the 30-day period allowed by the Implementing Rules. In Premiere Development Bank versus NLRC, 354 Philippines 851 (1998), private respondent’s suspension lasted for more than 30 days counted from the time she was placed on preventive suspension on March 13, 1986 up to the last day of investigation on April 23, 1986. The Court ruled that preventive suspension which lasts beyond the maximum period allowed by the Implementing Rules amounts to constructive dismissal. (Maricalum Mining Corp. versus Antonio Decorion, G.R. No. 158637, April 12, 2006).
