The Supreme Court ruled that an indefinite preventive suspension of an employee is equivalent to constructive dismissal. This means an employer cannot suspend an employee for an unlimited time pending investigation without facing legal consequences. This decision protects employees from being unfairly forced out of their jobs through prolonged and unjustified suspensions, ensuring their rights to security of tenure and due process are upheld.

Kubong Sawali’s Suspension: When Does Prevention Become Constructive Dismissal?

In Emilio S. Agcolicol, Jr. v. Jerwin Casiño, the central issue revolved around whether an employee, Jerwin Casiño, was constructively dismissed due to an indefinite preventive suspension. Casiño, employed as a Stock Custodian and Cook at Kubong Sawali Restaurant, was suspended following allegations of theft. The suspension was indefinite, pending investigation. The criminal complaint against him was later dismissed, but he was never reinstated. Casiño then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that the indefinite suspension amounted to constructive dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of Casiño, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Supreme Court was then asked to determine whether the indefinite suspension indeed constituted constructive dismissal and if the CA erred in affirming the NLRC’s decision.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by defining constructive dismissal as an act of discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer that makes the employment situation unbearable for the employee, leaving them with no choice but to resign. The court acknowledged that an indefinite preventive suspension can be a form of constructive dismissal. However, it clarified that not all preventive suspensions automatically lead to constructive dismissal. The employer’s right to impose preventive suspension is recognized under Rule XXIII, Implementing Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, specifically Section 8, which states:

SEC. 8. Preventive suspension. The employer may place the worker concerned under preventive suspension if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of his co-workers.

Building on this, the Court emphasized that a valid preventive suspension must adhere to both Section 8 and Section 9 of the same rule, which sets a 30-day limit. Section 9 provides:

SEC. 9. Period of suspension. No preventive suspension shall last longer than thirty (30) days. The employer shall thereafter reinstate the worker in his former or in a substantially equivalent position or the employer may extend the period of suspension provided that during the period of extension, he pays the wages and other benefits due to the worker. In such case, the worker shall not be bound to reimburse the amount paid to him during the extension if the employer decides, alter completion of the healing, to dismiss the worker.

The Court underscored that when a preventive suspension exceeds 30 days without reinstatement or is indefinite, it becomes constructive dismissal. This principle was previously established in cases like Pido v. NLRC, et al., where the employee’s prolonged suspension, due to the employer’s failure to conclude the investigation, was deemed constructive dismissal. The Supreme Court has consistently held that indefinite or prolonged preventive suspensions are a violation of employee rights, constituting constructive dismissal.

In this case, the memorandum order issued by Kubong Sawali Restaurant explicitly stated that Casiño’s suspension was indefinite, pending investigation. This alone violated the 30-day limit, making the suspension tantamount to constructive dismissal. Furthermore, the Court noted that after the dismissal of the qualified theft case against Casiño, the employer failed to issue a return-to-work order or any similar communication. The only communication was a letter addressed to another employee, Rosendo Lomboy, further indicating a lack of intention to have Casiño return to work.

The Supreme Court referenced several similar cases to support its decision. In C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. v. NLRC, the employer’s imposition of a preventive suspension pending final investigation, coupled with a lack of intention to conduct the investigation, was considered constructive dismissal. Similarly, in Premiere Development Bank, et al. v. NLRC, the prolonged suspension exceeding the 30-day limit was seen as a predetermined effort to dismiss the employee. These cases highlight the consistent judicial stance against using preventive suspension as a guise for terminating employment without due process.

The Court addressed the petitioner’s argument regarding conflicting rulings between different divisions of the NLRC in Casiño’s and Lomboy’s cases. While acknowledging the inconsistency, the Court emphasized that the absence of identity of parties meant res judicata did not apply. The Court focused on the core issue of whether Casiño was constructively dismissed, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that he was. The Court highlighted the importance of avoiding such inconsistencies in future cases by ensuring that quasi-judicial agencies and courts are fully informed of related pending or resolved cases.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that Kubong Sawali’s actions and omissions after the indefinite suspension, coupled with the circumstances surrounding the letter addressed to Lomboy, demonstrated a lack of desire to have Casiño continue his employment. This confirmed the finding of constructive dismissal. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the NLRC, reinforcing the protection of employees from indefinite preventive suspensions that effectively force them out of their jobs.

FAQs

What is constructive dismissal?	Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer’s actions make the working conditions so unbearable that the employee is forced to resign. This can include acts of discrimination, harassment, or imposing unreasonable conditions.
What is preventive suspension?	Preventive suspension is a temporary suspension of an employee when their continued presence poses a serious threat to the employer’s business or other employees. It is meant to be a short-term measure while an investigation is conducted.
How long can a preventive suspension last?	Under Philippine labor law, a preventive suspension should not exceed 30 days. After this period, the employee must be reinstated or the suspension can be extended with payment of wages and benefits.
What happens if a preventive suspension is indefinite?	If a preventive suspension is indefinite or exceeds the 30-day limit without proper extension and compensation, it is considered constructive dismissal. The employee can then file a case for illegal dismissal.
What was the main issue in the Agcolicol v. Casiño case?	The main issue was whether Jerwin Casiño was constructively dismissed due to an indefinite preventive suspension imposed by his employer, Kubong Sawali Restaurant.
What did the Supreme Court rule in this case?	The Supreme Court ruled that the indefinite preventive suspension imposed on Casiño was equivalent to constructive dismissal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts.
What should an employer do if they need to extend a preventive suspension?	If an employer needs to extend a preventive suspension beyond 30 days, they must provide valid reasons for the extension and continue to pay the employee’s wages and benefits during the extended period.
What rights does an employee have if they believe they have been constructively dismissed?	An employee who believes they have been constructively dismissed has the right to file a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. They may be entitled to backwages, separation pay, and other benefits if their claim is successful.

This case clarifies the limits of an employer’s right to impose preventive suspensions, reinforcing the importance of due process and employee rights in the workplace. Employers must ensure that any preventive suspension adheres to the 30-day limit and that employees are not subjected to indefinite suspensions that effectively force them out of their jobs.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Emilio S. Agcolicol, Jr. v. Jerwin Casiño, G.R. No. 217732, June 15, 2016