Related Doctrine: The action instituted to contest the legality of one’s dismissal from employment constitutes an action predicated upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff and must be brought within four years. However, although the commencement of a civil action stops the running of the statute of prescription or limitations, its dismissal or voluntary abandonment by the plaintiff leaves the parties in exactly the same position as though no action had been commenced at all.
Facts: Times Transportation Co., Inc. (TTCI) is a company engaged in the business of land transportation for passengers and goods serving the Ilocos Region to Metro Manila route. TTCI employed the petitioners as bus drivers, conductors, mechanics, welders, security guards and utility personnel.
In 1995, Times Employees Union (TEU) was certified as SEBA within TTCI. In March 1997, members of TEU went on strike but Labor Sec. Quisimbing issued a return-to-work order. On August 23, 1997, TCI adopted a company-wide retrenchment program due to unabated increase in the cost of operations losses.
On October 17, 1997, TEU declared another strike against TTCI, but TTCI reiterated the earlier return-to-work order of the Labor Sec. For disregarding the order, TTCI Pres. Santiago issued notices of termination of some 106 workers. Then on Dec. 4, 1997, Santiago served DOLE a notice that TTCI would be closing its operations due to heavy business losses.
On May 14, 1998, petitioners filed complaints against TTCI but was withdrawn on March 4, 1999, upon motion by the TEU’s counsel. Then, four years later, complaints for ULP, illegal dismissal with money claims, damages, and attorney’s fees were filed against TTCI, et. al before the Labor Arbiter.
In response, TTCI asserted that the petitioners’ cause of action had already been barred by prescription because the complaints were filed only in June 2002 or after almost five years from the date of their dismissal.
LA Ruling: Dismissed the petitioners’ claim for unfair labor practice and money claims on the ground of prescription. However, LA found that 10 petitioners were illegally dismissed and were awarded their separation pay and backwages. According to the LA, the complaints of these 10 petitioners were timely filed in June 2002 because the eight-month period during which their cases were pending should be excluded from the four-year prescriptive period. All parties filed an appeal before the NLRC.
NLRC Ruling: Set aside LA’s Ruling and observed that the LA had ignored the rule on prescription and chose to be selective in awarding relief to the 10 complainants.
CA Ruling: Sustained the NLRC ruling and dismissed the petition.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners’ complaints for illegal dismissal have already prescribed.
Decision: There is no question about the fact that the petitioners’ complaints for unfair labor practice and money claims have already prescribed.
The pivotal question in resolving the issues hinges on the resolution of whether the period during which the petitioners’ cases were pending should be excluded from the period of prescription. The petitioners contend that the period when they filed a labor case on May 14, 1998, but withdrawn on March 22, 1999, should be excluded from the computation of the four-year prescriptive period for illegal dismissal cases. However, the Court had already ruled that the prescriptive period continues even after the withdrawal of the case as though no action has been filed at all.
The filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal before the LA interrupted the running of the prescriptive period, its voluntary withdrawal left the petitioners in exactly the same position as though no complaint had been filed at all. The withdrawal of their complaint effectively erased the tolling of the reglementary period.
Read the full case here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.