G.R. No. L-55312 December 15, 1986
MANUEL L. FERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs. GROLIER INTERNATIONAL, INC., THE MINISTER OF LABOR, and THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Manuel L. Fernandez was employed by Grolier International, Inc. in the Philippines from 1964 until June 1974. He alleges that he was transferred by company management to its Sydney, Australia branch effective July 1, 1974, as part of a corporate reorganization. He worked in Australia until February 3, 1975, when he returned to the Philippines to process his immigration application. After the Australian Immigration Office denied his application on February 19, 1975, he sought reinstatement with Grolier Philippines. The company refused, contending he had voluntarily resigned to migrate. On June 8, 1976, Fernandez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking reinstatement with back wages and reimbursement for a plane fare deducted from his salary.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on dual grounds: prescription of the money claim and lack of jurisdiction over the foreign employer (Grolier Australia). The National Labor Relations Commission and the Minister of Labor affirmed this dismissal. Fernandez elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims was filed within the prescriptive period provided by law.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the finding that the complaint was filed out of time. The legal logic centers on the application of the prescriptive periods under the Labor Code, which took effect on November 1, 1974. The Court analyzed the nature of Fernandez’s claims. His cause of action for alleged illegal dismissal and related money claims, such as separation pay and reimbursement, accrued prior to the Code’s effectivity. His employment with Grolier Philippines ended in June 1974, and his stint in Australia was a separate engagement.
Applying Article 292 of the Labor Code, the Court ruled that all money claims accruing before November 1, 1974, must be filed within one year from that date, or by October 31, 1975. Fernandez filed his complaint only on June 8, 1976, which was beyond this one-year prescriptive period. The Court rejected his argument that prescription should be counted from a later demand in May 1976, as the operative fact triggering the claim was the termination of his local employment in mid-1974. Consequently, his right to assert the claim was forever barred. The Court found no need to definitively resolve the jurisdictional issue over the foreign entity, as the claim was already time-barred.