GR 273562 Dimaampao (Digest)
G.R. No. 273562, February 24, 2025
SANTIAGO DJ. SILLANO, PETITIONER, vs. JGC PHILIPPINES, INC. AND/OR VIRGILIO SAAVEDRA, ERIC TANJUTCO, AND LOLITA FALLER, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Santiago dJ. Sillano was preventively suspended by respondent JGC Philippines, Inc. (JGC). The company’s basis for the suspension was Sillano’s purported withholding of access to a disputed computer software. JGC acted as the owner of the software and demanded its turnover. During the pendency of the case with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) issued a ruling confirming Sillano as the rightful owner of the copyright over the disputed computer programs. The NLRC and the Court of Appeals held the preventive suspension to be valid. The ponente of the Supreme Court affirmed these rulings, leading to this dissenting opinion.
ISSUE
Whether the preventive suspension imposed by JGC on Sillano was valid, given that Sillano was later confirmed to be the rightful copyright owner of the disputed computer programs.
RULING
The dissenting opinion argues that the preventive suspension was NOT VALID. Preventive suspension under the Omnibus Rules is justified only if the employee’s continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or co-workers. Since Sillano was the confirmed copyright owner of the computer programs, JGC never held title over them. Therefore, Sillano’s act of withholding access or implementing security features to protect his intellectual property could not constitute a serious and imminent threat to JGC’s property. Copyright vests from the moment of creation, and the IPOPHL ruling merely confirmed this pre-existing right. JGC should have entered into a clear contract or assignment agreement regarding the copyrighted material instead of suspending Sillano for enforcing his rights. The dissenting opinion concludes that JGC must compensate Sillano for any loss of salaries and benefits during the preventive suspension and votes to grant the petition on this point.
