4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Overseas Employment, and more importantly, Republic Act No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. Citing Section 30 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, they maintained that all claims arising therefrom prescribes in three (3) years.[11] Petitioners argue that since the aforesaid provision specifically set the prescription to three (3) years, the period provided under Article 1146 of the Civil Code cannot be made to apply. They insist that private respondent’s cause of action even if principally anchored on his alleged illegal dismissal clearly prescribed in three (3) years under the aforesaid provision. Petitioners contend that even if private respondent’s claims are well-founded, the latter’s cause of action accrued on or before 6 December 2000. Thus, his complaint should have been instituted within three (3) years from 6 December 2000 or before 6 December 2003. They further contend that even assuming that the running of the period of prescription began only on 28 May 2001, the date when private respondent’s first complaint was dismissed without prejudice, his claims would have prescribed on 28 May 2004. Since private respondent filed his complaint only on 13 December 2004, the same had clearly prescribed.[12] The dispute is the period of prescription of action for illegal dismissal. It will be noticed that in their Motion to Dismiss before the NLRC, petitioners allege that the prescriptive period to be applied should be three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued in accordance with the Labor Code. However, in their petition before this Court, they changed their stand and alleged that the applicable provision should be that which is stated in the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen because seafarers are not regular employees and as such, are not covered by the Labor Code. In Callanta v. Carnation Philippines, Inc.,[13] this Court ruled that actions based on injury to rights prescribe in four (4) years under Article 1146 of the Civil Code rather than three (3) years as provided for the Labor Code. An action for damages involving a plaintiff separated from his employment for alleged unjustifiable causes is one for “injury to the rights of the plaintiff, and must be brought within four (4) years.”[14] Private respondent had gone to the Labor Arbiter on a charge, fundamentally, of illegal dismissal, of which his money claims form but an incidental part. Essentially, his complaint is one for “injury to rights” arising from his forced disembarkation.[15] Thus, Article 1146 is the applicable provision. It provides: Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years: (1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff; (2) Upon a quasi-delict; It is a principle in American jurisprudence which, undoubtedly, is well-recognized in this elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/39548 3/6