The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld a company’s decision to suspend an employee who blocked access to the software he created while working there.
In a decision written by associate justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division held that JGC Philippines Inc. (JGC) validly placed Santiago DJ. Sillano, a senior engineer, under preventive suspension while investigating his actions.
Sillano developed several 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 – Sillano activated security features that made the programs unusable.
JGC responded by suspending Sillano and asking him to explain. It later demanded that he unlock the programs and turn over the source codes. Sillano refused, saying JGC hadn’t proven ownership.
JGC then fired 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, stating that while JGC was justified in suspending Sillano, firing him was not.
Sillano challenged his preventive suspension before the SC, which agreed with the CA and upheld its validity.
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. This suspension is not a punishment but a precautionary measure. When justified, the employee is not entitled to receive salaries and benefits for the suspension period.
In this case, JGC had good reason to suspend Sillano. At that time, the company believed it owned the software, as the IPO had not yet ruled on this matter. Sillano’s action – blocking access – posed a threat to its property. The suspension also complied with the 30-day rule.
In his dissenting opinion, associate justice Japar B. Dimaampao argued that JGC had no legal right to suspend Sillano or demand access to the programs, since he was later confirmed to be the rightful owner.
