The Supreme Court ruled that Callanta's claim for illegal dismissal did not prescribe and that he was entitled to back wages. The Court held that the four-year prescriptive period for damages in the Civil Code supplements the Labor Code. Since Callanta filed his complaint within four years of his dismissal, it was still timely. The Court also ordered reinstatement but noted that a different company now owns Carnation so reinstatement would be up to the new owners.
The Supreme Court ruled that Callanta's claim for illegal dismissal did not prescribe and that he was entitled to back wages. The Court held that the four-year prescriptive period for damages in the Civil Code supplements the Labor Code. Since Callanta filed his complaint within four years of his dismissal, it was still timely. The Court also ordered reinstatement but noted that a different company now owns Carnation so reinstatement would be up to the new owners.
The Supreme Court ruled that Callanta's claim for illegal dismissal did not prescribe and that he was entitled to back wages. The Court held that the four-year prescriptive period for damages in the Civil Code supplements the Labor Code. Since Callanta filed his complaint within four years of his dismissal, it was still timely. The Court also ordered reinstatement but noted that a different company now owns Carnation so reinstatement would be up to the new owners.
October 28, 1986 NO – Based on jurisprudence, the Court held that an action for damages involving a By: Gayares plaintiff separated from his employment for an alleged unjustifiable causes is one Topic: Prescription for the injury to the rights of the plaintiff and must be brought within four years. Petitioners: Virgilio Callanta Respondents: Carnation Philippines, Inc. and National Labor Relations Commission Additionally, the period of prescription is mentioned under Art. 292 of the Labor (NLRC) Code, which refers to money claims for an injury suffered by a workingman. Ponente: Fernan, J. As for reinstatement, jurisprudence also shows that an action for such nature will only prescribe after four years from his dismissal from work. RECIT-READY/SUMMARY: Callanta was illegally dismissed by Carnation. Callanta filed for such action three years after his dismissal. Carnation argued that his action Hence, in this case, Callanta’s argument that the four-year prescriptive period had already prescribed. SC ruled that the provisions in the NCC work as a under Art. 1146 of the NCC applies by way of supplement. supplement to the provisions in the Labor Code. Hence, Callanta won. The action for illegal dismissal was filed by Callanta on July 1982 or three years, one DOCTRINE: month, and five days after the effectivity date of his dismissal on June 1979, which As a general rule, the statue of limitations extinguishes the remedy only. Although is well within the four-year prescriptive period under Art. 1146 of the NCC. the remedy to enforce a right may be barred, that right may still be enforced by some other available remedy, which is not barred Even if we take the argument of Carnation that money claims can only be filed within the three-year prescriptive period, a strict application of the Labor Code will FACTS: not destroy the fundamental rights of employees. Callanta was employed by Carnation as a salesman. Five years after, Carnation filed an application for clearance to terminate As a general rule, the statue of limitations extinguishes the remedy only. Although the employment of Callanta on the alleged grounds of serious misconduct the remedy to enforce a right may be barred, that right may still be enforced by and misappropriation of company funds amounting to P12k. some other available remedy, which is not barred. The application was approved and Callanta’s employment was terminated. Additionally, the Court found that the reason behind Callanta’s delay in filing the Three years after his termination, Callanta filed a complaint for illegal action was due to the threat that he would be charged with estafa should he dismissal with claims for reinstatement, backwages, and damages against pursue an action against Carnation. Carnation. Carnation responded, alleging that his action is barred by prescription Wherefore, Carnation is ordered to pay petitioner Callanta backwages for three since he filed the case three years after his termination. years without qualification and deduction. As for reinstatement, Carnation is now Labor Arbiter: Termination of Callanta is without valid cause; Carnation under a different management, hence, the decision will entirely matter on their must reinstate Callanta with backwages of one year and all benefits own assumption of liabilities. provided by law and company policy. NLRC: Set aside Labor Arbiter’s decision. Callanta’s complaint has already prescribed.
ISSUE: W/N Callanta’s complaint for illegal dismissal against Carnation has already prescribed?
Amado de Guzman and Manila Workers Union and General Workers Union (Malegwu), Petitioners, vs. Court of APPEALS and NASIPIT LUMBER COMPANY, Respondents