4/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly speak. This happened only when the private respondent finally demanded reinstatement on May 2, 1980, and his demand was categorically rejected by the petitioner on May 10, 1980.”[11] (emphasis supplied) The facts in the case at bar are similar to the Baliwag case. Petitioner repeatedly demanded payment from respondent Maersk but similar to the actuations of Baliwag Transit in the above cited case, respondent Maersk warded off these demands by saying that it would look into the matter until years passed by. In October 1993, Serrano finally demanded in writing payment of the unsent money orders. Then and only then was the claim categorically denied by respondent A.P. Moller in its letter dated November 22, 1993. Following the Baliwag Transit ruling, petitioner’s cause of action accrued only upon respondent A.P. Moller's definite denial of his claim in November 1993. Having filed his action five (5) months thereafter or in April 1994, we hold that it was filed within the three-year (3) prescriptive period provided in Article 291 of the Labor Code. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the impugned resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated June 18, 1999 and July 15, 1999 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the Labor Arbiter ordering respondent Maersk and/or A.P. Moller to pay petitioner his untransmitted money order payments in the amount of HK$4,600.00 and £1,050,00 Sterling Pounds or their peso equivalent at the time of actual payment is reinstated.[12] No costs. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, p. 16; Original Records, pp. 220-221; Affidavit-Complaint, p. 1. [2] Rollo, pp. 5, 10. [3] Id., p. 5. [4] Id., p. 11. [5] Id., p. 45. [6] Id., pp. 23-24. [7] Rollo, p. 41. [8] G.R. No. 143789, November 27, 2000. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52537 8/9