Prescriptive Period For Filing A Complaint For Illegal Dismissal

Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. employed George A. Arriola as correspondent assigned in Olongapo Cityand Zambales. Arriola had held various positions in Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. before becoming a section editor and writer of its newspaper. He wrote "Tinig ng Pamilyang OFWs" until his column was removed from publication. Since then, Arriola never returned for work.

Arriola filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries/wages, moral and exemplary damages, actual damages, attorney's fees, and full backwages with the National Labor Relations Commission. Arguing that he was a regular employee, Arriola contended that his rights to security of tenure and due process were violated when Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. illegally dismissed him.

Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. and Miguel G. Belmonte denied Arriola’s allegations. They alleged that Arriola suddenly absented himself from work and never returned despite Belmonte’s phone calls and beeper messages. Arriola denied that he abandoned his employment. He maintained that Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. ordered him to stop reporting for work and to claim his separation pay. To prove his allegation, Arriola presented a statement of account allegedly faxed to him by Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc.’s accounting head.

Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco decided the case. She ruled that Arriola’s complaint is barred by laches; emphasizing that Arriola took three years and one day to file his complaint. According to the Labor Arbiter, this was "contrary to the immediate and natural reaction of an aggrieved person." The Labor Arbiter found that Arriola abandoned his employment with Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. to write for a rival newspaper publisher.

The NLRC and CA sustained the decision of the Labor Arbiter, hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

1. Are the money claims filed by petitioner barred by prescription?

2. Is petitioner Arriola illegally dismissed by respondent Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc.?

RULING:

1. The money claims filed by petitioner is NOT barred by prescription.

The Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the Court of Appeals all ruled that Arriola’s claims for unpaid salaries, backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees have prescribed. They cited Article 291 of the Labor Code, which requires that money claims arising from employer-employee relations be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued:

Art. 291. MONEY CLAIMS. All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred.

Article 291 covers claims for overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, bonuses, salary differentials, and illegal deductions by an employer. It also covers money claims arising from seafarer contracts.

The provision, however, does not cover "money claims" consequent to an illegal dismissal such as backwages.It also does not cover claims for damages due to illegal dismissal. These claims are governed by Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides:

Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:

(1) Upon injury to the rights of the plaintiff.

The prescriptive period for filing an illegal dismissal complaint is four years from the time the cause of action accrued. This four-year prescriptive period applies to claims for backwages, not the three-year prescriptive period under Article 291 of the Labor Code. Since an award of backwages is merely consequent to a declaration of illegal dismissal, a claim for backwages likewise prescribes in four years.

The four-year prescriptive period under Article 1146 also applies to actions for damages due to illegal dismissal since such actions are based on an injury to the rights of the person dismissed. In this case, Arriola filed his complaint three years and one day from his alleged illegal dismissal. He, therefore, filed his claims for backwages, actual, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees well within the four-year prescriptive period.

2. Petitioner Arriola is NOT illegally dismissed by respondent Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc.

The removal of [Arriola’s] column from private respondent [Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc.’s newspaper] is not tantamount to a termination of his employment as his job is not dependent on the existence of the column ‘Tinig ng Pamilyang OFWs.’"When Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. removed "Tinig ng Pamilyang OFWs" from publication, Arriola remained as section editor. Moreover, a newspaper publisher has the management prerogative to determine what columns to print in its newspaper.

Arriola abandoned his employment with Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. Abandonment is the "clear, deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to continue his employment, without any intention of returning." It has two elements: first, the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason and, second, a clear intention to sever employer-employee relations exists. The second element is "the more determinative factor and is manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employee has no more intention to work." He took three years and one day to remedy his dismissal. This shows his clear intention to sever his employment with Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc.

G.R. No. 175689, August 13, 2014

GEORGE A. ARRIOLA, Petitioner, v. PILIPINO STAR NGAYON, INC. AND/OR MIGUEL G. BELMONTE, Respondents.

LEONEN, J.:

The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer

Neil Christian

I want to share to you my knowledge about law, our travels with my family, success principles as well as healthy insights. I hope you will enjoy and learn from my blog.