G.R. No. 120030 – 273 SCRA 549 – Labor Law – Labor Relations – Preventive Suspension – No need to allege imminent threat in suspension letter
Marissa Villanueva and Henry Payot were purchasing officers of Atlas Fertilizer Corporation (Atlas). In March 1992, Atlas made an audit and it discovered that there were numerous irregularities in the purchases being made by Villanueva and Payot. In April 1992, both were placed under preventive suspension. In July 1992, both were finally terminated from their work.
Thereafter, Villanueva and Payot filed a labor case against Atlas for illegal dismissal and illegal suspension. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Atlas. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) however reversed the decision of the labor arbiter.
The NLRC ruled, among others, that the preventive suspension imposed upon Villanueva and Payot, was improper and unreasonable because in the suspension letter, as well as the audit report upon which it was based, did not contain any finding that the presence of Villanueva and Payot in the company’s premises posed a serious and imminent threat to Atlas’s property.
ISSUE: Whether or not the suspension letter must cite a specific finding that the employees to be preventively suspended do pose a threat to the company properties.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court held that there is nothing in the rules which provides for that.
Preventive suspension is a disciplinary measure for the protection of the company’s property pending investigation of any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by the employee. Section 3, Rule XIV, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides:
Sec. 3. Preventive Suspension. The employer may place the worker concerned under preventive suspension if his continued employment poses a serious threat to the life or property of the employer or of his co-workers.
Nothing in this rule requires that the report upon which the preventive suspension was based should make a specific finding that the employee’s continued employment poses an imminent threat to the property of the employer. It is enough that such fact can be gleaned from the circumstances of the case.
