Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Pingol
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Roberto R. Pingol was employed by Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) as a maintenance technician starting in 1979. In April 1999, Pingol was hospitalized for paranoid personality disorder. Upon his discharge, he returned to work but frequently absented himself due to his continuing mental health issues. From September 16, 1999, to December 31, 1999, Pingol was absent without official leave. PLDT sent him notices warning of termination if the absences continued, citing company practice that seven consecutive days of absence without authorized leave are grounds for dismissal. Despite these warnings, Pingol did not return to work, and on January 1, 2000, PLDT terminated his employment for unauthorized absences and abandonment of office. Procedural History: On March 29, 2004, over four years after his termination, Pingol filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and monetary claims against PLDT. PLDT moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Pingol's cause of action had prescribed, as the complaint was filed more than four years after his dismissal. Pingol countered that the prescriptive period should not include the years 2001 to 2003, during which he claimed to be inquiring about his benefits, and that these inquiries should not be construed as abandonment. The Labor Arbiter granted PLDT's motion to dismiss, finding the complaint prescribed. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, remanding the case for further proceedings. PLDT's motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, PLDT filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The CA dismissed PLDT's petition, affirming the NLRC's resolutions. PLDT's motion for reconsideration of the CA's decision was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the decisions of the Court of Appeals. PLDT argues that the CA erred in affirming the NLRC's ruling, contending that Pingol's complaint was filed beyond the four-year prescriptive period for actions based on injury to rights and the three-year period for money claims. PLDT asserts that Pingol's own complaint stated January 1, 2000, as the date of his dismissal, which constituted a judicial admission that should have been conclusive. PLDT further argues that Pingol's alleged follow-ups regarding his benefits did not interrupt the prescriptive period, as they were not in writing and did not constitute a written extrajudicial demand or acknowledgment of debt as required by Article 1155 of the Civil Code.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Roberto R. Pingol filed his complaint for constructive dismissal and monetary claims within the prescriptive period of four (4) years as provided in Article 1146 of the Civil Code and three (3) years as provided in Article 291 of the Labor Code, respectively. Whether the alleged follow-ups made by respondent Pingol from 2001 to 2003 tolled the running of the prescriptive period.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed December 21, 2007 Decision and April 18, 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new judgment is entered DISMISSING the complaint of Roberto R. Pingol.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription for constructive dismissal and monetary claims: The Court finds the petition meritorious. Both parties do not dispute the applicable prescriptive periods: four years for actions based on an injury to the rights of the plaintiff under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, and three years for money claims arising from employer-employee relations under Article 291 of the Labor Code. The pivotal question is the accrual date of the cause of action. A cause of action has three elements: a right in favor of the plaintiff, an obligation on the part of the defendant to respect that right, and an act or omission by the defendant that violates the plaintiff's right. In this case, respondent Pingol himself alleged in his complaint filed on March 29, 2004, that his dismissal occurred on January 1, 2000. This constitutes a judicial admission, which is conclusive and requires no further proof unless shown to be a palpable mistake. The complaint was filed four years and three months after the stated dismissal date, thus exceeding the four-year prescriptive period for illegal dismissal cases. The general rule on prescription, as stated in Article 1150 of the Civil Code, is that the time for prescription is counted from the day the action may be brought, which in this case is January 1, 2000, the date Pingol was no longer allowed to perform his job. On the issue of tolling the prescriptive period: The Court disagrees with respondent Pingol's assertion that his follow-ups from 2001 to 2003 tolled the prescriptive period. Article 1155 of the Civil Code, which applies in the absence of a specific Labor Code provision, states that prescription is interrupted by filing an action, a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor, or a written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. Pingol's alleged follow-ups did not constitute a written extrajudicial demand nor a written acknowledgment of debt by PLDT. Furthermore, Pingol failed to present any proof to substantiate his claim of these follow-ups. Therefore, these alleged inquiries did not interrupt or toll the running of the prescriptive period. The Court reiterated that while it is committed to social justice and the protection of the working class, justice must be dispensed in light of established facts and applicable law and doctrine, and an employee's own allegations can bar their remedy if filed beyond the prescriptive period.
Main Doctrine
A complaint for illegal dismissal filed four (4) years and three (3) months after the stated date of dismissal is considered prescribed, as the prescriptive period is four (4) years from the date the cause of action accrued. Admissions made by a party in their pleadings are conclusive and do not require further proof unless shown to be a palpable mistake. Follow-ups with the employer do not toll the prescriptive period unless they constitute a written extrajudicial demand or a written acknowledgment of debt.