Practice question
An employee is accused of a minor past paperwork error. The employer admits there is no serious and imminent threat to life or property, but imposes an unpaid preventive suspension merely to teach a lesson before investigating. It argues that staying below thirty days makes the measure valid. What is correct?
- Any suspension below thirty days is automatically lawful
- The missing threat defeats the asserted preventive basis; the time limit does not convert premature punishment into protection
- Calling it preventive makes the motive irrelevant
- The allegation itself supplies every required fact
- The employee must confess before the employer needs a reason
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/nov2021/gr_227718_2021.html — Lagamayo v. Cullinan Group, Inc., G.R. 227718, November 11, 2021, main decision: Omnibus Rules, Rule XXIII, sections 8–9; thirty-day limit, reinstatement, paid extension and no reimbursement.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/feb2020/gr_225100_2020.html — Every Nation Language Institute v. Dela Cruz, G.R. 225100, February 19, 2020, main decision: preventive suspension is protective, not a penalty; justified initial suspension.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/gr_207838_2017.html — Maula v. Ximex Delivery Express, Inc., G.R. 207838, January 25, 2017, main decision: serious and imminent threat required.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.