Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) v Panganiban

G.R. No. 151407 | February 2007

Wages

FACTS (take note of the dates kasi this is about prescription of claims):
 Ireneo Panganiban (respondent) was the Assistant General Manager of IBC from May
1986 until his resignation on September 1988.
 In 1989, respondent filed with the RTC a civil case against the Board of
Administrators (BOA) of IBC alleging, among others, non-payment of his
commission.
o A motion to dismiss was filed by Joselito Santiago on the ground that RTC had no
jurisdiction since it was a labor money claim BUT this was denied by the RTC with
Orders dated October 1990 and November 1990.
 Santiago then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA which, in 1991, then granted the
petition and set aside the RTC orders, thereby dismissing the civil case.
 Respondent was then elected by the BOA of IBC as VP for Marketing on July 1992 but he
resigned on April 1993.
 On July 1996, respondent filed a complaint for ID, sep pay, retirement benefits,
unpaid commissions, and damages.
 LA (September 1997): reinstatement with full backwages and unpaid commission of
over 2M
 IBC appealed to the NLRC BUT since they did not post a bond, NLRC dismissed the case.
They then filed an MR of the dismissal but this was also denied (March 1998).
o IBC went straight to the SC, but SC remanded the case to the CA.
 CA (July 1999): Annul the 1997 LA decision because the claims in conjunction with his
respondent’s employment from 1986 to 1988 have already prescribed, claims from 1992
to 1993 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
o Respondent filed an MR which was granted. CA ordered a resolution (2001) and
ordered IBC to pay the 2M unpaid commission.
o IBC then filed an MR on the 2001 resolution but was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE with RATIO:

WoN the respondent’s claim for unpaid commission in the amount of over 2M has prescribed
YES.
 The CA held that the respondent’s claim was filed within the 3-year prescriptive period
under Art. 291 of the LC. They used the following dates:
o Date of resignation – September 2, 1988
o Date of filing of first civil case with RTC – April 12, 1989
 5 months and 10 days have elapsed. The filing interrupted the prescription
period.
o Date of dismissal of case – October 21, 1991
 Prescription ran again starting Oct. 21, 1991.
o Acknowledgement of debt by petitioners in a letter – January 21, 1993
  1 year and 3 months have elapsed. Express acknowledgement interrupted
the prescription period.
 IBC claimed that the filing of the case with the RTC did not interrupt the period since it
was not the proper judicial forum.
 SUPREME COURT: The applicable law is Article 291 of the LC which states that all
money claims arising from EER must be filed within 3 years from the time the cause of
action accrued. This must be read vis-à-vis Article 217 of the LC which states that LA has
the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide within 30 calendar days after the
submission of the case if:
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file
involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from
employer-employee relations;
xxxx
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and
maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-employee relations,
including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount
exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied
with a claim for reinstatement.
xxxx
 Since the LC is silent on how to determine the interruption of the period, the SC used
Article 1155 of the NCC which states that it may only be interrupted by:
o Filing of an action
o Written extrajudicial demand by creditor
o Written acknowledgement of debt by debtor
 Although the filing of an action stops the running of the prescription period, the
dismissal or voluntary abandonment by the plaintiff leaves the parties in exactly the
same position as though no action has been commenced at all.
o TL;DR – If the case was dismissed, prescription continues from the original
date.
o In the case, since he resigned in September 1988, and the case was dismissed in
October 1991, the period has already prescribed.
 As for the acknowledgment of the debt, the letter only recognized 105K, not 2M. BUT that
fact is irrelevant since the letter was dated 1993, 2 years after the action has prescribed.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated August 21, 2001 and January
9, 2002 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 50283 are SET ASIDE, and its
Decision dated July 30, 1999 rendered in the same case is REINSTATED.