Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Callanta V Carnation Phil 145 SCRA 268
Callanta V Carnation Phil 145 SCRA 268
FACTS:
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.
4. On July 5, 1982, Virgilio Callanta filed with the MOLE, a complaint for illegal dismissal
with claims for reinstatement, backwages, and damages against respondent Carnation.
9. 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.
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 an action for illegal dismissal prescribes in three [3] years pursuant to Articles
291 and 292 of the Labor Code
RULING:
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 prohibited 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.