BVR & ASSOCIATES
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
    • VIRTUAL ASSISTANT
    • CALL CENTER SERVICES
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • CONTACT US

a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer


Maricalum v. Decorion, April 12 2006

6/26/2022

0 Comments

 
Facts:
Decorion was a regular employee of Mariculum Mining who was placed under preventive suspension. He was placed under suspension because of his failure to attend a meeting that prompted the management not to allow him report to work for the following day. After a month, Decorion was served a Notice of Infraction and Proposed Dismissal to enable him present his side which prompted him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. This made Decorion’s indefinite suspension be made definite with a warning that violation of the same conduct would be punished with dismissal. Months after, he was served a memo telling him of his temporary lay-off due to Maricalum’s temporary suspension of its operations. Decorion, through his counsel, requested that he be reinstated which was, unfortunately, denied. Maricalum insist that Decorion was not dismissed but merely preventively suspended

Issue:
Was the preventive suspension valid/proper.
 
Held:
The SC held that sections 8 and 9 of Rule XXIII, Book V of the Implementing Rules are explicit that preventive suspension is justified where the employee’s continued employment poses a 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.  Preventive suspension which lasts beyond the maximum period allowed by the Implementing Rules amounts to constructive dismissal.
 
Similarly, from the time Decorion was placed under preventive suspension on April 11, 1996 up to the time a grievance meeting was conducted on June 5, 1996, 55 days had already passed. Another 48 days went by before he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on July 23, 1996.  Thus, at the time Decorion filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, he had already been suspended for a total of 103 days.
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    May 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2018

    Categories

    All
    Agrarian Law
    Articles-of-incorporation
    By-laws
    Constitutional Law
    Criminal Law
    Law
    Persons And Family Relations

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
    • VIRTUAL ASSISTANT
    • CALL CENTER SERVICES
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • CONTACT US