Callanta vs Carnation Philippines > Respondent Carnation was therefore ordered to reinstate Issue: whether or not an action for illegal dismissal
Virgilio Callanta to his former position with backwages of one prescribes in three [3] years pursuant to Articles 291 and 292
[1] year without qualification including all fringe benefits of the Labor Code
Facts: provided for by law and company policy, within ten [10] days
from receipt of the decision. It was likewise provided that
> Petitioner Virgilio Callanta was employed by private failure on the part of respondent to comply with the decision Held:
respondent Carnation Philippines, Inc. [Carnation, for brevity] shall entitle complainant to full backwages and all fringe
>the instant case, the action for illegal dismissal was filed by
in January 1974 as a salesman in the Agusan del Sur area. benefits without loss of seniority rights. petitioners on July 5, 1982, or three [3] years, one
[1] month and five [5] days after the alleged effectivity date of
> Five [5] years later or on June 1, 1979, respondent > On April 18, 1983, respondent Carnation appealed to his dismissal on June 1, 1979 which is well within
respondent National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC] the four [4]year prescriptive period under Article 1146 of the
Carnation filed with the Regional Office No. X of the Ministry
of Labor and Employment [MOLE], an application for which in a decision which set aside the decision of the Labor New Civil Code.
Arbiter. It declared the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by
clearance to terminate the employment of Virgilio Callanta on Virgilio Callanta to have already prescribed.
the alleged grounds of serious misconduct and
>Even on the assumption that an action for illegal dismissal
misappropriation of company funds amounting to P12,000.00,
falls under the category of "offenses" or "money
more or less.
> Petitioner contends that since the Labor Code is silent as
claims" under Articles 291 and 292, Labor Code, which
to the prescriptive period of an action for illegal dismissal with
provide for a three year prescriptive period, still, a strict
> Upon approval on June 26, 1979 by MOLE Regional claims for reinstatement, backwages and damages, the
application of said provisions will not destroy the enforcement
Director Felizardo G. Baterbonia, of said clearance applicable law, by way of supplement, is Article 1146 of the
of fundamental rights of the employees.
New
application, petitioner Virgilio Callanta's employment with
Carnation was terminated effective June 1, 1979. Civil Code which provides a four [4]year
prescriptive period for an action predicated upon "an injury to >As a statutory provision on limitations of actions, Articles 291
the rights of the plaintiff" considering that an action for illegal and 292 go to matters of remedy and not to the destruction of
> On July 5, 1982, Virgilio Callanta filed with the MOLE, dismissal is neither a "penal offense" nor a mere "money fundamental rights. 13 As a general rule, a statute of
Regional Office No. X, a complaint for illegal dismissal with claim," as contemplated under Articles 291 and 292, limitation extinguishes the remedy only.
claims for reinstatement, backwages, and damages against respectively, of the Labor Code. Petitioner further claims that
respondent Carnation. an action for illegal
>Although the remedy to enforce a right may be barred, that
1 dismissal is a more serious violation of the rights of an right may be enforced by some other available remedy which
employee as it deprives him of his means of livelihood thus, is not barred. More so, in the instant case, where the delay in
> On March 24, 1983, Labor Arbiter Pedro C. Ramos it should correspondingly have a prescriptive period longer filing the case was with justifiable cause. The threat to
rendered a decision finding the termination of Callanta's than the three 13] years provided for in "money claims." petitioner that he would be charged with estafa if he filed a
employment to be without valid cause. complaint for illegal dismissal, which private respondent did
after all on June 22,1981, justifies, the delayed filing of the
action for illegal dismissal with the Regional Office No. X,
MOLE on July 5, 1982.
LABOR LAW CASE DIGEST PART 1
> The term of the contract was for one year, from May > On appeal, respondent NLRC affirmed the decision of the
15,1981 to May 14, 1982. However, the contract provided for POEA.
>Laches will not in that sense strengthen the cause of public
respondent. Besides, it is deemed waived as it was never its automatic renewal
alleged before the Labor Arbiter nor the NLRC. > Not satisfied with the resolution of the POEA, petitioner
instituted the instant special civil action for certiorari,
>The contract was automatically renewed when private
respondent was not repatriated by his Saudi employer but alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC.
>Public respondent dismissed the action for illegal dismissal
on the sole issue of prescription of actions. It did not instead was assigned to work as a crusher plant operator. On
March 30, 1983, while he was working as a crusher
resolve the case of illegal dismissal on the merits. > Petitioner claims that the NLRC gravely abused its
Nonetheless, to resolve once and for all the issue of the plant operator, private respondent's right ankle was crushed discretion when it ruled that petitioner was liable to private
legality of the dismissal, We find that petitioner, who has under the machine he was operating
respondent for disability benefits since at the time he was
continuously served respondent Carnation for five [5] years
injured his original employment contract, which
was, under the attendant circumstances, arbitrarily dismissed
from his employment. The alleged shortage in his > On May 15, 1983, after the expiration of the renewed term, petitioner facilitated, had already expired. Further, petitioner
private respondent returned to the Philippines. His disclaims liability on the ground that its agency
accountabilities should have been impartially investigated
with all due regard for due process in view of the admitted ankle was operated on at the Sta. Mesa Heights Medical agreement with the Saudi principal had already expired when
enmity between petitioner and E.L. Corsino, respondent's Center for which he incurred expenses. the injury was sustained.
auditor. Absent such an impartial investigation, the alleged
shortage should not have been attended with such a drastic
consequence as termination of the employment relationship. > On September 9, 1983, he returned to Saudi Arabia to Issue: W/N Petitioner is liable to respondent for disability
Outright dismissal was too severe a penalty for a first offense, resume his work. On May 15,1984, he was repatriated benefits despite the renewal of the original contract.
considering that the alleged shortage was explained to
respondent's Auditor, E.L. Corsino, in accordance with
respondent's accounting and auditing
> Upon his return, he had his ankle treated for which he Held:
policies. incurred further expenses. On the basis of the provision in the
employment contract that the employer shall compensate the > Private respondents contract of employment can not be
Catan VS NLRC employee if he said to have expired on May 14, 1982 as it was automatically
renewed since no notice of its termination was given by either
is injured or permanently disabled in the course of or both of the parties at least a month before its expiration, as
Facts: employment, private respondent filed a claim against so provided in the contract itself. Therefore, private
2
petitioner with respondent Philippine Overseas Employment respondent's injury was sustained during the lifetime of the
> Petitioner, a duly licensed recruitment agency, as agent of Administration. contract.
Ali and Fahd Shabokshi Group, a Saudi Arabian firm,
recruited private respondent to work in Saudi Arabia as a
steelman > On April 10, 1986, the POEA rendered judgment in favor of > A private employment agency may be sued jointly and
private respondent. solidarily with its foreign principal for violations of the
>Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the ECC however, whether respondents hypertension, pneumonia or pulmonary
according to the appellate tribunal, pneumonia and tuberculosis is compensable under the Employees
pulmonary tuberculosis are respiratory diseases which may Compensation Act. >Respondents work entailed that he be stationed in the Port
be caused by the environment or occupation of Manila and the South Harbor, areas whose sanitation and
overall environmental condition are suspect. Moreover,
depending on the level of sanitation of the surroundings. Held: respondents duties required that he mingle with numerous
persons who may have been carriers of the diseasecausing
Section 1 (b), Rule III of the Rules Implementing PD No. 626,
as amended, states that for the sickness and the resulting virus. The nature of his job demanded long working hours to
>In the course of his employment, maintain the efficient and systematic release of outgoing
disability or death to be compensable, the same must be the
respondent was stationed in the Port of Manila which is result of an occupational disease listed under Annex A with vessels and the reception of incoming vessels.
located in an area where sanitation is the conditions set therein satisfied otherwise, proof must be People vs Turda
shown that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by
questionable. His work required him to mingle with people the working conditions.
from different walks of life. His job also demanded a lot of
mental work thereby making him susceptible to stress and Facts:
fatigue that could weaken his resistance and cause >
hypertension which in turn could trigger a cerebrovascular We find that respondents hypertension is a complication of
accident or stroke. his primary ailment which is diabetes mellitus, a
nonoccupational disease, hence not compensable