E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 12/19/21, 1:28 PM company.[22] The above issues boil down to a single issue of whether the claim of Imelda for death compensation benefits filed on May 29, 2000, or more than five years from the time her husband Vedasto was reported missing on August 2, 1994, is already barred by prescription following the provisions of Article 291 of the Labor Imelda's Arguments Imelda contends that her claim was not yet barred by prescription when she filed it on May 29, 2000. She avers that when she went to the office of Korphil to claim the death benefits due to the heirs of her husband, Korphil advised her that it was still premature and that she has to wait for the lapse of four years before her husband Vedasto could be declared dead. This is in accordance with the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code. However, when she came back after four years, she was told that her claim has already prescribed pursuant to Article 291 of the Labor Code. Imelda asserts that Korphil is, therefore, estopped from interposing the defense of prescription in this case as it was Korphil itself which advised her to wait for at least four years before filing the claim for death benefits. However, the CA ignored this very material fact albeit conspicuously discussed as one of Imelda's arguments. Imelda further contends that the CA erred when it held that Article 391 of the Civil Code applies only in cases of settlement of estates, and not to cases of death compensation claims as in this case. Korphil's Arguments Korphil, on the other hand, argues that prescription of actions for money claims arising from employer-employee relationship is governed by Article 291 of the Labor Code. The three-year prescriptive period referred to in Article 291 shall commence to run from the time the cause of action accrued. According to Korphil, the unexplained disappearance on August 2, 1994 of Vedasto occurred on the high seas where there is inherent impossibility for him to leave the ship. The fact that he could not be found dead or alive despite best A efforts of all the crew members and the other vessels which responded to the distress call, and the failure of Imelda to establish that Vedasto is still alive are more than substantial proofs to establish that the latter died on August 2, 1994. Therefore, prescription should be reckoned from this date which is considered as the time of death of Vedasto. It is also at this point that the obligation of Korphil to pay death compensation can be demanded as a matter of right by the heirs of Vedasto. Korphil posits that since Imelda filed only on May 29, 2000, or almost five years and ten months from August 2, 1994, her claim to recover death benefits, damages, and attorney's fees is, therefore, already barred by the three-year prescriptive period under Article 291 of the Labor Code. Our Ruling The petition is impressed with merit. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/37942 Page 4 of 10