Callanta V Carnation Phil 145 SCRA 268

Callanta v Carnation Phil 145 SCRA 268 ( Oct 28,1986)
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, petitioner’s

employment with Carnation was terminated.
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.
5. Respondent Carnation: questioned the timeliness of petitioner’s complaint alleging that

the same is barred by prescription for having been filed more than 3 years after the date
of Callanta’s dismissal.
6. LA Ramos rendered a decision finding the termination of Callanta's employment to be

without valid cause.
7. 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.
8. Respondent Carnation Philippines appealed to respondent NLRC.
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.
10. 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 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.

Callanta V Carnation Phil 145 SCRA 268

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

Callanta V Carnation Phil 145 SCRA 268

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Callanta v Carnation Phil 145 SCRA 268 ( Oct 28,1986)

1. Petitioner Virgilio Callanta was employed by respondent Carnation Philippines, Inc. as a

3. Upon approval by MOLE Reg Director Baterbonia of said application, petitioner’s

5. Respondent Carnation: questioned the timeliness of petitioner’s complaint alleging that

6. LA Ramos rendered a decision finding the termination of Callanta's employment to be

8. Respondent Carnation Philippines appealed to respondent NLRC.

10. Hence, this petition.

You might also like