Teekay Shipping Phils. v. Concha
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Ramier C. Concha was hired as an Able Seaman by petitioners Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc., and/or Teekay Shipping Canada, Ltd. on November 9, 2000. While performing his duties on November 23, 2000, a foreign particle entered his left eye, causing injury. He received initial medical treatment on board and was later admitted to hospitals in Australia, where he was diagnosed with Left Eye Acute Iritis (Granulomatous). He was repatriated to the Philippines on December 6, 2000, and underwent further medical treatment until February 2001. Procedural History: On May 28, 2001, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims, which was dismissed without prejudice by the Labor Arbiter on the same date. On December 13, 2004, respondent filed a second complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking disability benefits, damages, attorney's fees, and wages for the unexpired portion of his contract. Petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing the claim had prescribed under Article 291 of the Labor Code (3-year prescriptive period). The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on February 28, 2005. The NLRC set aside the dismissal and ordered the case remanded for further proceedings, finding that the case had not prescribed. The NLRC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Petitioners assailed the NLRC resolutions before the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed their petition on July 3, 2008, and denied their motion for reconsideration on November 20, 2008. The Petition: Petitioners seek the reversal of the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in ruling that respondent's claims had not prescribed.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that private respondent’s claims have not yet prescribed. Whether the applicable prescriptive period for the seafarer's claim is three (3) years under the POEA Standard Employment Contract or four (4) years under Article 1146 of the Civil Code; and the determination of the amount of claims or benefits to which the private respondent may be entitled.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the petition is bereft of merit. The Court ruled that the applicable prescriptive period for the seafarer's claim is four (4) years under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, and that the filing of the first complaint tolled the prescriptive period.
Ratio Decidendi
On the prescription of the seafarer's claim: The Court held that the appellate court was correct in ruling that the private respondent's claims had not prescribed. Petitioners contended that the claim prescribed within three (3) years under Section 30 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract. However, the Court noted that petitioners had shifted their stance, initially arguing for a three-year period under the Labor Code, and then asserting the POEA contract provision. The Court reiterated its ruling in Callanta v. Carnation Philippines, Inc. that actions based on injury to rights prescribe in four (4) years under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, not three (3) years as provided for in the Labor Code. An action for damages involving a plaintiff separated from employment for alleged unjustifiable causes is one for "injury to the rights of the plaintiff," and must be brought within four (4) years. The private respondent's complaint, fundamentally for illegal dismissal, with money claims as an incidental part, is essentially an action for "injury to rights" arising from his forced disembarkation. Therefore, Article 1146 of the Civil Code is the applicable provision. The Court applied Article 1155 of the Civil Code, which states that the prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the Court. The records showed that after his disembarkation on December 6, 2000, the private respondent filed his first complaint for illegal dismissal on May 28, 2001. This filing tolled the running of the period of prescription. Although this first complaint was dismissed without prejudice, Section 16, Rule V of the NLRC Rules of Procedure allows for the re-filing of such cases. Therefore, both the NLRC and the CA were correct in ruling that the filing of the respondent's second complaint on December 13, 2004, was clearly filed within the prescriptive period. On the applicable prescriptive period and remand of the case: The Court explained that a person's employment, profession, trade, or calling is considered a "property right" under American jurisprudence, which is well-recognized in the Philippines. Wrongful interference with this right is an actionable wrong, protected by the constitutional guaranty of due process. Consequently, when an individual is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or livelihood, the action to contest the legality of such dismissal constitutes an action predicated "upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff," as contemplated under Article 1146 of the New Civil Code, which must be brought within four (4) years. The Court found the petition bereft of merit and agreed with the NLRC and the CA that the case should be referred back to the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC for the reception of evidence, given that the determination of the amount of claims or benefits to which the private respondent may be entitled requires factual inquiry, which devolves upon the Labor Arbiter.
Main Doctrine
An action for illegal dismissal filed by a seafarer, which involves injury to rights arising from forced disembarkation, falls under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, prescribing in four (4) years, not three (3) years as provided for money claims under the Labor Code or the POEA Standard Employment Contract. The filing of a complaint before the NLRC, even if dismissed without prejudice, tolls the running of the prescriptive period.