Preventive Suspension: How Long Can It Last?

The rule is in the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. Their text as amended in 1997, quoted by the Supreme Court in Lagamayo v. Cullinan Group (2021) and Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod v. Montaño (2022), says: "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 of his co-workers."

So preventive suspension is not allowed for every charge. The threat must be:

• serious and imminent, and
• to life or property of the employer or of co-workers.

In Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod (2022), the Court upheld the preventive suspension of a school registrar who had access to student records. The school was found to have acted within its right.

Thirty days at most. The rule quoted in Lagamayo says: "No preventive suspension shall last longer than thirty (30) days." It then gives the employer two choices when the 30 days end:

1. Reinstate the worker in his or her former position or in a substantially equivalent one; or
2. Extend the suspension, but pay the worker's wages and other benefits during the extension.

If the employer later decides, after the hearing, to dismiss the worker, the worker does not have to give back what was paid during the extension.

No. It is a precaution while the investigation goes on, not a punishment. Whether the worker is disciplined or dismissed is decided after the investigation, on the grounds the law allows. The just causes for dismissal are in [Article 297 [282]](/law/labor-code/article-297) of the Labor Code: see Valid reasons to fire an employee. The worker must still get notice and a chance to be heard: see Fired without notice?

The term is also explained in preventive suspension.

In Lagamayo (2021), the Court said that "mere extension" of the 30-day period "will not amount to constructive dismissal" on its own. For a prolonged suspension to be constructive dismissal, "the totality of the circumstances must show that the prolonged suspension was tainted with bad faith or malice."

In that case, the employee was suspended on February 8, 2011, and the investigation ended on March 1, 2011, within the 30 days. The Court found that he was not constructively dismissed and that he had left his job voluntarily. His unpaid wages and benefits were still awarded. See Constructive dismissal: when quitting counts as being fired.

The Omnibus Rules text of 1989 on the Supreme Court E-Library has the same rules, in Book V Rule XIV: the serious and imminent threat condition (Section 3) and the 30-day limit with the choice between reinstatement and a paid extension (Section 4). The Court in Lagamayo quoted the rules as amended in 1997, where the same rules appear as Sections 8 and 9 of Rule XXIII of Book V.

These are made-up examples to show how the rules work. They are not advice for any real case.

Ana, a cashier, is accused of taking money from the till. Her employer places her on preventive suspension for 30 days while it investigates, because she handles cash every day. The suspension is tied to a threat to the employer's property.

Ben, a clerk, is accused of being late many times. His employer suspends him "preventively" for 45 days without pay. Lateness does not usually involve a threat to life or property, and the suspension goes past 30 days without pay for the extra days, which the rules do not allow.

Ana's investigation takes longer than expected. On day 30, her employer extends the suspension for two weeks and pays her wages for those two weeks. Under Lagamayo, the extension alone is not constructive dismissal unless bad faith is shown.

Talk to a lawyer if your suspension has gone past 30 days without pay, if you were suspended for a charge that does not involve any threat to life or property, or if you are an employer deciding whether to suspend a worker. The outcome depends on the facts and on the investigation. If you cannot afford a lawyer, see Free legal help in the Philippines.