The decision of a company to suspend an employee after he blocked access to software he created while working in the firm was upheld by the Supreme Court (SC).

Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, in a decision he wrote dated 24 February 2025, stated that 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.

Records showed that Sillano developed several programs while working under JGC. A dispute later arose over who owned the software—Sillano claimed it was his, while JGC asserted that it belonged to the company. Sillano then activated security features that made the programs unusable.

In response, the company suspended Sillano and asked him to explain. It later demanded that he unlock the programs and turn over the source codes, but Sillano refused, saying JGC hadn’t proven ownership.

With this, the company fired Sillano for disobedience and filed a complaint against him for violating his employment contract. Sillano, in turn, sued JGC for illegal dismissal and suspension.

Sillano 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.

The preventive suspension was challenged by Sillano 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, since at that time, the company believed it owned the software, as the IPO had not yet ruled on the 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.