THIRD DIVISION
MARICALUM
MINING G.R.
No. 158637
CORPORATION,
Petitioner, Present:
-
versus - QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
ANTONIO DECORION, CARPIO MORALES, and
Respondent.
TINGA, JJ.
Promulgated:
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
Tinga, J.:
This Petition[1]
dated July 8, 2003 filed by Maricalum Mining
Corporation (Maricalum Mining) assails the Decision[2] of
the Court of Appeals which upheld the labor arbiter’s finding that respondent,
Antonio Decorion (Decorion),
was constructively dismissed and therefore entitled to reinstatement and backwages.
There is no substantial dispute on the
operative facts of this case.
Decorion was a regular employee of Maricalum Mining who started out as a Mill Mechanic
assigned to the Concentrator Maintenance Department and was later promoted to
Foreman I. On
A month after or on
A grievance meeting was held upon Decorion’s request on June 5, 1996, during which he
manifested that he failed to attend the meeting on April 11, 1996 because he
was then still assigning work to his men.
He maintained that he has not committed any offense and that his service
record would show his efficiency.
On
In the meantime, the matter of Decorion’s suspension and proposed dismissal was referred
to Atty. Roman G. Pacia, Jr., Maricalum
Mining’s Chief and Head of Legal and Industrial Relations, who issued a
memorandum on
On
Decorion, through counsel, wrote a letter to Maricalum Mining on
Conciliation proceedings having
failed to amicably settle the case, the labor arbiter rendered a decision[4]
dated
The NLRC, however, reversed the labor
arbiter’s decision and dismissed Decorion’s
complaint.[5] The reversal was premised on the finding that
the case was litigated solely on Decorion’s
allegation that he was dismissed on
On petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals, the decision of the labor arbiter was reinstated. The appellate court held that Decorion was placed under preventive suspension immediately
after he failed to attend the meeting called by his supervisor on
The appellate court denied Maricalum Mining’s motion for reconsideration in its
Resolution[6]
dated
In this petition, Maricalum
Mining insists that Decorion was not dismissed but
merely preventively suspended on
Decorion filed a Comment[8]
dated
Maricalum Mining filed a Reply[9]
dated
We reject the petition.
Sections 8 and 9 of Rule XXIII, Book
V of the Implementing Rules provide as follows:
Section 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 his co-workers.
Section 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, after completion of the hearing, to
dismiss the worker. [Emphasis supplied.]
The 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.[10]
What is more, Decorion’s
suspension persisted beyond the 30-day period allowed by the Implementing Rules. In Premiere Development Bank v. NLRC,[11]
private respondent’s suspension lasted for more than 30 days counted from
the time she was placed on preventive suspension on
Similarly, from the time Decorion was placed under preventive suspension on
Maricalum Mining’s contention that there was
as yet no illegal dismissal at the time of the filing of the complaint is
evidently unmeritorious. Decorion’s preventive suspension had already ripened into
constructive dismissal at that time. While
actual dismissal and constructive dismissal do take place in different fashion,
the legal consequences they generate are identical.
Decorion’s employment may not have been
actually terminated in the sense that he was not served walking papers but there
is no doubt
that he was constructively dismissed as he was
forced to quit because continued employment was
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely[12] by
Maricalum Mining’s act of preventing him from
reporting for work.
Petitioner’s reliance on
In sum, Maricalum
Mining cannot feign denial of due process.
Its theory is based entirely on its erroneous reading of
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
hereby DENIED. The challenged Decision
and Resolution of the Court of Appeals respectively dated
SO ORDERED.
DANTE
O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[2]