Main point as to the topic of service incentive leave:

The 3 year prescriptive period on claims regarding service incentive leaves (ART 291, LC) only runs
from the time when the employer refuses to pay its monetary equivalent after demand of
commutation or upon termination of the employee's services, not at the end of the year when
the employee becomes entitled to the commutation of his service incentive leave.

SO:
- Upon demand of the employee
- Upon the termination of the employee and he demanded to the said service incentive leave

IT IS NOT at the END of the YEAR when he becomes entitled to the commutation of his service
incentive leave

Facts:

Rodriguez alleged that she was employed at Sps. Javier’s numerous companies, the last being Park N
Ride.
 Aside from that, she also attends to incidental tasks not related to her official position, like buying
household necessities for one of her bosses Estelita Javier (Estelita). She also allegedly worked
strenuous hours. She was deducted an equivalent of two (2) days' wage for every day of
absence.

 In one instance, Estelita was mad at her for opening the office late sabi daw sakanya “kung ayaw
mo ng trabaho mo we can manage!”

 Thus, Rodriguez eventually submitted a letter expressing her gripes at the Sps. Javier to which
the latter construed and accepted as the former’s resignation. (parang sensitive masyado si ate)

 In their Position Paper, Sps. Javier stated that they hired and trusted Rodriguez with both their
businesses and personal affairs, and this made her more senior than any of her colleagues at
work. However, Rodriguez was allegedly emotionally sensitive and prone to occasional "tampo"
when she would be reprimanded or cited for tasks unaccomplished. She would then be absent
after such reprimands and would eventually return after a few days.

 Rodriguez filed a complaint for constructive illegal dismissal, non-payment of service incentive
leave pay and 13th month pay, including claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's
fees against Park N Ride, Vicest Phils., Grand Leisure, and the Javier Spouses.

ISSUE:
1. WON there was constructive dismissal? – NONE – (sensitib masyado si ati)
2. Is she entitled with respect to service incentive leave pay?
Ruling:

Constructive dismissal - NONE

There is constructive dismissal only when an employer's act of clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain
becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee so as to foreclose any choice on his part except to
resign from such employment. It exists where there is involuntary resignation because of the harsh,
hostile and unfavorable conditions set by the employer.

Strong words can be a form of contrastive dismissal only if without palpable reason or are expressed
only for the purpose of degrading the dignity of the employee, then a hostile work environment will be
created. HERE, the utterance of "Kung ayaw mo na ng ginagawa mo, we can manage! " are not
sufficient to make the continued employment of petitioner impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely.
As to the service incentive leave pay? YES

1. Rodriguez was enjoying vacation leave with pay of at least five days while being employed by
private respondents Spouses Javier; (so by provision of law she is entitled to service incentive
leave of 5 days per year convertible to cash)

2. it was not shown that private respondents Spouses Javier were merely employing less than 10
employees (on the contrary, private respondent spouses Javier stated that they were employing
less than 15 employees). Hence, the award of service incentive leave pay to petitioner Rodriguez
was proper.

From what year is she entitled to the service incentive leave?

Note of the ff facts:

- She Employed on January 30, 1984

- She resigned in October 2009
- Bale 25 yrs na siyang employed

The argument kasi ng employer is that dapat 2006-2009 lang siya entitled because of the prescriptive
period of incentive leaves kasi sab isa 291 prescriptive period is 3 YRS
- Applying the prescriptive period for money claims under Article 291 of the Labor Code however,
petitioner Rodriguez should only be entitled to the three years' worth of service incentive pay for
the years 2006 to 2009.

So the question is – is she entitled to her service incentive leave that she did not use from the
year 1984-2009? YES

Why? --- The reckoning period for the purposes of counting the prescriptive period under 291 of the labor
code is from when the employer fails to pay such amount at the time of his resignation or separation from
employment.

The cause of action of an entitled employee to claim his service incentive leave pay accrues from the
moment the employer refuses to remunerate its monetary equivalent if the employee did not make use of
said leave credits but instead chose to avail of its commutation.1âwphi1

Accordingly, if the employee wishes to accumulate his leave credits and opts for its commutation upon his
resignation or separation from employment, his cause of action to claim the whole amount of his
accumulated service incentive leave shall arise when the employer fails to pay such amount at the time of
his resignation or separation from employment.

Applying Article 291 of the Labor Code in light of this peculiarity of the service incentive leave, we can
conclude that the three (3)-year prescriptive period commences, not at the end of the year when the
employee becomes entitled to the commutation of his service incentive leave, but from the time when
the employer refuses to pay its monetary equivalent after demand of commutation or upon
termination of the employee's services, as the case may be.

Thus, the prescriptive period with respect to petitioner's claim for her entire service incentive
leave pay commenced only from the time of her resignation or separation from employment. Since
petitioner had filed her complaint on October 7, 2009, or a few days after her resignation in September
2009, her claim for service incentive leave pay has not prescribed. Accordingly, petitioner must be
awarded service incentive leave pay for her entire 25 years of service-from 1984 to 2009-and not only
three (3) years' worth (2006 to 2009)
NOTE: in the construction of art 291 – the court also applied liberal construction. “when in doubt – rule in
favor of the laborer”