E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 12/19/21, 1:28 PM On July 31, 2002, the NLRC issued a Resolution[13] reversing and setting aside the January 31, 2002 Decision of the Labor Arbiter. According to the NLRC, the death of Vedasto which was clearly shown by evidence to be a case of suicide was not compensable under the clear provisions of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. Imelda filed a Motion for Reconsideration[13] which was opposed by Korphil.[14] In a Resolution[15] dated May 30, 2003, the NLRC reversed its July 31, 2002 Resolution and reinstated the January 31, 2002 Decision of the Labor Arbiter. Korphil filed a Motion for Reconsideration[16] which was denied by the NLRC through its Resolution[17] dated July 31,2003. Ruling of the Court of Appeals Aggrieved, Korphil filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari.[18] On October 10, 2003, Imelda filed her Comment.[19] Korphil did not file its reply and so the CA in a Resolution[20] dated December 4, 2003 deemed that it had waived the right to file its reply. The CA directed the parties to submit their respective memoranda and then the case was declared submitted for decision. On June 30, 2005, the CA issued its assailed Decision which granted the petition, reversed and set aside the May 30, 2003 Resolution of the NLRC, and dismissed the case for lack of merit. It held that under Article 291 of the Labor Code, Imelda should have filed her complaint within three years from the time the cause of action accrued. Thus, Imelda should have filed her complaint within three years from Vedasto's disappearance on August 2, 1994. Having filed her complaint only on May 29,2000, the same is already barred by prescription. Imelda moved for reconsideration[21] but to no avail. Hence, this appeal ascribing upon the CA the following errors: 1. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in law when it held that Art. 291 of the xxx Civil Code [applies] only in case of settlement of estates, not in the claim for death compensation benefits under the Labor Code. 2. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in law when it applied as precedent the case of Caltex (Phils.) Inc. vs. Cristela Villanueva, G.R. No. L-15658, August 21, 1961. 3. Assuming arguendo that Art. 391 of the xxx Civil Code does not apply, the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in law in refusing to apply the rule on estoppel against the respondent company, thereby giving premium on the respondent's deception of invoking prematurity when the petitioner timely demanded her death compensation benefits but then raised the defense of prescription when she reiterated her claim after waiting for the lapse of four (4) years as earlier advised by the respondent company.[22] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/37942 Page 3 of 10