Carnation Philippines Petitioner appeals to SC stating:
a. That the Labor Code is silent on the prescriptive period Facts: of an action for illegal dismissal with claims for Petitioner Virgilio Callanta was employed by respondent reinstatement, backwages and damages. Carnation Philippines Inc. in Jan. 1974 as a salesman in b. The applicable law, by way of supplement, is Art. 1146 Agusan del Sur area. of NCC which provides a 4 year prescriptive period for However, on June 1, 1979, respondent filed with Ministry Of an action predicated upon “an injury to the rights of the Labor and Employment (MOLE) to terminate the plaintiff’ considering that an action for illegal dismissal employment of petitioner on the grounds of serious is neither a “penal offense” nor a mere “money claim,” misconduct and misappropriation of company funds as contemplated under Art. 291 & 292 of LC. amounting to 12k. c. That an action for illegal dismissal is a more serious On June 26, 1979, MOLE director Felizardo Baterbonia violation of the rights of an employee as it deprives him approved this hence making the June 1, 1979 application of his means of livelihood; thus, it should have a effective as termination of petitioner’s employment. prescriptive period longer than the 3 years provided for in “money claims.” On July 5, 1982 petitioner filed also with MOLE alleging that it is illegal dismissal with claims of reinstatement, Issue: backwages and damages which was approved by Labor Arbiter Pedro Ramos on March 24, 1983, stating that the a. WON the action of petitioner has already prescribed termination is w/o valid cause hence, reinstatement must be b. WON the applicable law is Art. 1146 of the NCC or Art. 291 made. & 292 of the LC On April 18, 1983, respondent appealed to National Labor Held: Relations Commission (NLRC) stating that the action of petitioner has already prescribed. a. NO. NLRC reversed the decision of MOLE alleging that Art. 291 1. SC pointed out that petitioner correctly cited Valencia and 292 of the Labor Code are the ones applicable to this vs. Cebu Portland Cement, et.al, (a 1959 case) as an case: applicable case insofar as it concerns the issue of a. Art. 291. Offenses.—Offenses penalized under this Code prescription of actions. In said case, SC held that an and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto action for damages involving a plaintiff separated from shall prescribe in three [3] years. his employment for alleged unjustifiable causes is one b. Art, 292. Money claims.—All money claims arising from for “injury to the rights of the plaintiff, and must be employer-employee relations accruing during the brought within 4 years. effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three [3] 2. In Santos vs. CA, SC, thru C.J. Fernando, sustained the years from the time the cause of action accrued; stand of the Solicitor General that the period of otherwise, they shall be forever barred. prescription mentioned under Art. 292 of LC refers to and “is limited to money claims, all other cases of injury Hence, action of petitioner already prescribed. to rights of a workingman being governed by NCC.” Hence, SC ruled that petitioner Marciana Santos (petitioner in this case), who sought reinstatement, had 4 years to file her complaint for the injury to her rights as provided under Art. 1146 NCC. b. Art. 1146 is the applicable one 1. Even on the assumption that an action for illegal dismissal falls under the category of “offenses” or “money claims” under Art. 291 & 292 of LC, which provide for a 3 year prescriptive period, still, a strict application of said provisions will not destroy the enforcement of fundamental rights of the employees. As a statutory provision on limitations of actions, Art. 291 & 292 go to matters of remedy and not to the destruction of fundamental rights. c. With all that said, from June 1, 1979, the date of the illegal dismissal up to July 5, 1982, date of petitioner’s filing of this action. Doctrine: Art. 1146 of NCC; Action for injury to one’s rights must be brought within 4 years. How did it end: NLRC’s decision reversed; Reinstatement was made to petitioner to his former position w/o loss of seniority rights and privileges, a supervening event Respondent was ordered to pay 3 years of backwages of petitioner w/o qualification or deduction Additional notes: There was an issue of laches against petitioner. But SC stated that it cannot be said as laches because respondent made threats to petitioner if he files an action for the illegal dismissal made upon him. Respondent should’ve been guilty of estafa because of this.