This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| By a preventive suspension an employer protects itself from further harm or losses because of the erring employee. This concept was explained by the Court in Gatbonton v. National Labor Relations Commission:[18] | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| First, it must be pointed out that the basis of the 30-day preventive suspension imposed on Delada was different from that of the 90-day penalty of suspension. The 30-day preventive suspension was imposed by MPH on the assertion that Delada might sabotage hotel operations if preventive suspension would not be imposed on him. On the other hand, the penalty of 90-day suspension was imposed on respondent as a form of disciplinary action. It was the outcome of the administrative proceedings conducted against him. Preventive suspension is a disciplinary measure resorted to by the employer pending investigation of an alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by an employee.[7] The employer temporarily bars the employee from working if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of his co-workers.[8] On the other hand, the penalty of suspension refers to the disciplinary action imposed on the employee after an official investigation or administrative hearing is conducted.[9] The employer exercises its right to discipline erring employees pursuant to company rules and regulations.[10] Thus, a finding of validity of the penalty of 90-day suspension will not embrace the issue of the validity of the 30-day preventive suspension. In any event, petitioner no longer assails the ruling of the CA on the illegality of the 30-day preventive suspension.[11] | |||||