GR 87320; (June, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 87320; June 6, 1991
Pablo R. Magno, petitioner, vs. Philippine National Construction Corp. (PNCC), formerly Construction and Development Corp. of the Philippines (CDCP), National Labor Relations Commission, Second Division, Department of Labor and Employment, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Pablo R. Magno was a regular employee of respondent PNCC from July 1975. In November 1979, he was deployed to PNCC’s overseas project in Hongkong. He worked there until January 1983 when the project was completed. Upon his return to the Philippines, PNCC neither assigned him to new work nor paid his salary, instead giving him the “run-around” under the pretext of waiting for a new assignment.
On December 4, 1987, Magno filed a complaint with the NLRC for separation pay and/or retirement benefits. After PNCC raised the issue of prescription, he amended his complaint on February 23, 1988 to include a charge of illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement with back wages. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Magno’s favor, ordering his reinstatement. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision, dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription.
ISSUE
Whether or not the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by the petitioner had already prescribed.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the NLRC’s finding that the action had prescribed. The Court clarified the applicable prescriptive periods. An action for illegal dismissal, being an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, is governed by Article 1146 of the Civil Code, which prescribes in four (4) years. This differs from ordinary money claims arising from employer-employee relations, which prescribe in three (3) years under Article 292 (now 291) of the Labor Code.
The Court held that Magno’s cause of action accrued in January 1983 when he returned from Hongkong and was effectively dismissed by PNCC’s failure to provide work or pay. His original complaint for separation pay was filed on December 4, 1987, which was already beyond the three-year period for money claims. His amended complaint for illegal dismissal, filed in February 1988, was filed more than four years from the accrual of the cause of action and was therefore barred by prescription. The Court rejected Magno’s argument that the period did not run due to the absence of formal termination, stating that his explanation for the delay was flimsy and that the law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.