4/9/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
On 13 December 2004, private respondent filed another complaint[6] for illegal
dismissal before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. In his complaint, he sought to
recover disability benefits, damages and attorney’s fees. He likewise prayed for the
payment of wages pertaining to the unexpired portion of his contract.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint for being time-barred.
Relying on Article
291 of the Labor Code, they maintained that all money claims premised on, or arising
from one’s employment should be brought within three (3) years from the time the
cause of action accrued.
In an Order[7] dated 28 February 2005, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on
the ground of prescription.
Aggrieved, private respondent on 11 April 2005 filed an appeal[8] to the NLRC arguing
that the Labor Arbiter erred in dismissing his complaint and in denying him due process
by not giving him the opportunity to present evidence against petitioners.
On 28 November 2006, the NLRC issued a Resolution[9] setting aside the 28 February
2005 Order of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC, in effect, reinstated the case and ordered
the Labor Arbiter of origin to conduct further proceedings.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this was denied by the NLRC in an
Order[10] dated 31 January 2007.
Petitioners assailed the 28 November 2006 and 31 January 2007 Resolutions of the
NLRC before the CA.
On 3 July 2008, the CA promulgated a decision dismissing their petition. The motion
for reconsideration filed by petitioners on 25 July 2008 was denied in a Resolution
dated 20 November 2008.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that private respondent’s claims have not yet
prescribed.
OUR RULING
The appellate court is correct.
We find the instant petition bereft of merit.
Petitioners contend that the CA unjustifiably turned a blind eye to pertinent existing
laws, contract and prevailing jurisprudence. They insist that seafarers are contractual
employees whose rights and obligations are governed primarily by the POEA Standard
Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen, the Rules and Regulations Governing
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/39548
2/6