MANILA—The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of JGC Philippines, Inc.’s decision to suspend a senior engineer who blocked company access to software he developed while employed there.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division ruled that JGC validly imposed preventive suspension on Santiago DJ. Sillano while the company investigated his actions.

Sillano had created several programs during his time with JGC. When a dispute arose over ownership—Sillano claiming the software was his, and JGC asserting company ownership—Sillano activated security features that rendered the programs inaccessible.

The company responded by suspending Sillano and requiring him to explain his actions. It also demanded that he unlock the programs and turn over the source codes. Sillano refused, insisting JGC had not proven its ownership.

JGC later terminated Sillano for disobedience and filed a complaint against him for breaching his employment contract. In response, Sillano filed charges for illegal dismissal and suspension, and also brought the matter to the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which later ruled in his favor, recognizing him as the software’s owner.

While the Labor Arbiter initially sided with JGC and upheld the dismissal, the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals ruled that although the suspension was valid, Sillano’s dismissal was not.

Sillano challenged the legality of his suspension before the Supreme Court, which affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling upholding the suspension.

Under the Labor Code, preventive suspension—without pay for up to 30 days—is allowed when an employee’s continued presence poses a threat to company property. The Court noted that the measure is precautionary, not disciplinary, and when justified, the employee is not entitled to salaries or benefits during the period.

The Court said JGC had legitimate grounds to impose the suspension, citing that at the time, the company believed it owned the software. The IPO had not yet resolved the ownership issue, and Sillano’s actions—restricting access to the programs—posed a threat to company assets. The suspension also complied with the 30-day limitation.

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao maintained that JGC had no legal basis to suspend Sillano or demand access to the programs, given that he was ultimately declared the rightful owner.