038 Callanta Vs Carnation Phils, Inc

038 CALLANTA vs. CARNATION PHILIPPINES, INC.
145 SCRA 268

October 28, 1986
Digest by: KAYELYN LAT
Petitioner: Virgilio Callanta
Respondents: Carnation Philippines, Inc. and NLRC
Petition/Nature of the case: Petition for certiorari
Ponente: J. Fernan
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Virgilio Callanta was employed by respondent Carnation
Philippines, Inc. as a salesman in the Agusan del Sur area
2. 5 years later, respondent Carnation filed with the Regional Office of
the Ministry of Labor and Employment an application for clearance
to terminate the employment of petitioner on the alleged grounds of
serious misconduct and misappropriation of company funds
amounting to P12,000, more or less
3. Upon approval by MOLE Reg Director Baterbonia of said
application, petitioners employment with Carnation was terminated
4. Respondent Carnation: questioned the timeliness of petitioners
complaint alleging that the same is barred by prescription for having
been filed more than 3 years after the date of Callantas dismissal
5. LA Ramos: termination of Callantas employment to be without
valid cause
- Respondent Carnation was ordered to reinstate Callanta to
his former position with backwages of 1 yr without
qualification inc all fringe benefits
- Failure on the part of respondent to comply with the decision
shall entitle complaint Callanta to full backwages and all
fringe benefits without loss of seniority rights
6. Respondent Carnation Philippines appealed to respondent NLRC
7. NLRC: set aside the decision of LA; declared complaint for illegal
dismissal filed by Callanta to have already prescribed
- Callanta was dismissed from his employment effective
JUNE 1, 1979; and that on JULY 5, 1982, he filed the
instant complaint against respondent for Unlawful Dismissal
with Backwages, etc.
8. Hence, this petition.

Petitioner:
- Since the Labor Code is silent as to the prescriptive period of an
action for illegal dismissal with claims for reinstatement,
backwages and damages, the applicable law, is ARTICLE 1146
of the NCC which provides a 4-year prescriptive period for an
action predicated upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff
considering that an action for illegal dismissal is neither a penal
offense nor a mere money claim, as contemplated in Articles
291 and 292 of the LC
- An action for illegal dismissal is a more serious violation of the
rights of an employee as it deprives him of his means of
livelihood; thus, it should correspondingly have a prescriptive
period longer than the 3 yrs provided for in
money claims
Respondent:
- a case for illegal dismissal falls under the general category of
"offenses penalized under this Code and the rules and regulations
pursuant thereto" provided under Article 291 or a money claim
under Article 292, so that petitioner's complaint for illegal
dismissal filed on July 5, 1982, or three [3] years, one [1] month
and five [5] days after his alleged dismissal on June 1, 1979, was
filed beyond the three-year prescriptive period as provided under
Articles 291 and 292 of the Labor Code, hence, barred by
prescription
ISSUE: Whether or not NLRC was correct in ruling that the complaint
for illegal dismissal filed by complainant Callanta has already prescribed
thus should be dismissed
RULING/RATIO: NO.
The dismissal without just cause of an employee from his employment

constitutes a violation of the Labor Code and its implementing rules and
regulations. Such violation, however, does not amount to an "offense"
as understood under Article 291 of the Labor Code. In its broad sense,
an offense is an illegal act which does not amount to a crime as defined
in the penal law, but which by statute carries with it a penalty similar to
those imposed by law for the punishment of a crime
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL - unlike in cases of commission of any of

the probihited activities during strikes or lockouts under Article 265,
unfair labor practices under Article 248, 249 and 250 and illegal
recruitment activities under Article 38, among others, which the Code
itself declares to be unlawful, termination of an employment without just
or valid cause is not categorized as an unlawful practice
One's employment, profession, trade or calling is a "property right," and
the wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong. The right is
considered to be property within the protection of a constitutional
guaranty of due process of law. Clearly then, when one is arbitrarily and
unjustly deprived of his job or means of livelihood, the action instituted
to contest the legality of one's dismissal from employment constitutes, in
essence, an action predicated "upon an injury to the rights of the
plaintiff," as contemplated under Art. 1146 of the New Civil Code,
which must be brought within four [4] years.
IN THE CASE AT BAR:

- There is, merit in the contention of petitioner that the four [4]-year
prescriptive period under Article 1146 of the New Civil Code,
applies by way of supplement. The action for illegal dismissal was
filed by petitioners on July 5, 1982, or three [3] years, one [1] month
and five [5] days after the alleged effectivity date of his dismissal on
June 1, 1979 which is well within the four [4]-year prescriptive
period under Article 1146 of the New Civil Code.
- Public respondent dismissed the action for illegal dismissal on
the sole issue of prescription of actions. It did not resolve the case
of illegal dismissal on the merits. Nonetheless, to resolve once and
for all the issue of the legality of the dismissal, We find that
petitioner, who has continuously served respondent Carnation
for five [5] years was, under the attendant circumstances,

arbitrarily dismissed from his employment. The alleged shortage
in his accountabilities should have been impartially investigated
with all due regard for due process in view of the admitted
enmity between petitioner and E.L. Corsino, respondent's
auditor.
Absent such an impartial investigation, the alleged shortage should
not have been attended with such a drastic consequence as
termination of the employment relationship. Outright dismissal was
too severe a penalty for a first offense, considering that the alleged
shortage was explained to respondent's Auditor, E.L. Corsino, in
accordance with respondent's accounting and auditing policies.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: Petitioner Callanta won.

WHEREFORE, respondent Carnation Philippines, Inc. is hereby
ordered to pay petitioner Virgilio Callanta backwages for three [3] years
without qualification and deduction. This decision is immediately executory.
No costs.
DOCTRINE: Public respondent dismissed the action for illegal dismissal on
the sole issue of prescription of actions. It did not resolve the case of illegal
dismissal on the merits. Nonetheless, to resolve once and for all the issue of
the legality of the dismissal, We find that petitioner, who has continuously
served respondent Carnation for five [5] years was, under the attendant
circumstances, arbitrarily dismissed from his employment. The alleged
shortage in his accountabilities should have been impartially investigated
with all due regard for due process in view of the admitted enmity between
petitioner and E.L. Corsino, respondent's auditor.

038 Callanta Vs Carnation Phils, Inc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

038 Callanta Vs Carnation Phils, Inc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

038 CALLANTA vs. CARNATION PHILIPPINES, INC.

145 SCRA 268

8. Hence, this petition.

The dismissal without just cause of an employee from his employment

ILLEGAL DISMISSAL - unlike in cases of commission of any of

IN THE CASE AT BAR:

for five [5] years was, under the attendant circumstances,

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: Petitioner Callanta won.

You might also like