GR 182622; (September, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182622 ; September 8, 2010
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY [PLDT], Petitioner, vs. ROBERTO R. PINGOL, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Roberto Pingol was hired by PLDT in 1979. On January 1, 2000, PLDT terminated his services on the grounds of unauthorized absences and abandonment, citing his absence without official leave from September 16 to December 31, 1999. Pingol, who had been hospitalized for a mental condition in April 1999, alleged he was hastily dismissed.
Pingol filed a Complaint for Constructive Dismissal and Monetary Claims only on March 29, 2004, over four years after his dismissal. PLDT moved to dismiss on the ground of prescription. The Labor Arbiter granted the motion, ruling the complaint was filed beyond the four-year prescriptive period for illegal dismissal claims. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed, holding the prescriptive period had not lapsed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC, prompting PLDT to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether Pingol’s complaint for constructive dismissal and monetary claims was filed within the prescriptive periods provided by law.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted PLDT’s petition and dismissed Pingol’s complaint for having prescribed. The Court applied Article 1146 of the Civil Code, which sets a four-year prescriptive period for actions upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, such as illegal dismissal. The prescriptive period commences from the day the cause of action accrues, which is the date of dismissal.
The Court found that Pingol’s cause of action accrued on January 1, 2000, the date he unequivocally alleged in his complaint as the date of his dismissal. This constituted a judicial admission that was not shown to be made through palpable mistake. Therefore, the four-year period to file his action expired on January 1, 2004. His filing on March 29, 2004, was indisputably beyond this period. His claim that he made inquiries from 2001 to 2003 did not toll the running of the prescriptive period, as mere inquiries or promises, without a categorical denial from the employer that would restart the period, do not interrupt prescription. Consequently, his monetary claims under Article 291 of the Labor Code, which prescribes in three years, were also barred. The Labor Arbiter’s original order of dismissal was reinstated.