CALLANTA v CARNATION

GR NO. 70615 HELD/RATIO:

October 28, 1986 NO – Based on jurisprudence, the Court held that an action for damages involving a
By: Gayares plaintiff separated from his employment for an alleged unjustifiable causes is one
Topic: Prescription for the injury to the rights of the plaintiff and must be brought within four years.
Petitioners: Virgilio Callanta
Respondents: Carnation Philippines, Inc. and National Labor Relations Commission Additionally, the period of prescription is mentioned under Art. 292 of the Labor
(NLRC) Code, which refers to money claims for an injury suffered by a workingman.
Ponente: Fernan, J.
As for reinstatement, jurisprudence also shows that an action for such nature will
only prescribe after four years from his dismissal from work.
RECIT-READY/SUMMARY: Callanta was illegally dismissed by Carnation. Callanta
filed for such action three years after his dismissal. Carnation argued that his action
Hence, in this case, Callanta’s argument that the four-year prescriptive period
had already prescribed. SC ruled that the provisions in the NCC work as a
under Art. 1146 of the NCC applies by way of supplement.
supplement to the provisions in the Labor Code. Hence, Callanta won.
The action for illegal dismissal was filed by Callanta on July 1982 or three years, one
DOCTRINE:
month, and five days after the effectivity date of his dismissal on June 1979, which
As a general rule, the statue of limitations extinguishes the remedy only. Although
is well within the four-year prescriptive period under Art. 1146 of the NCC.
the remedy to enforce a right may be barred, that right may still be enforced by
some other available remedy, which is not barred
Even if we take the argument of Carnation that money claims can only be filed
within the three-year prescriptive period, a strict application of the Labor Code will
FACTS:
not destroy the fundamental rights of employees.
 Callanta was employed by Carnation as a salesman.
 Five years after, Carnation filed an application for clearance to terminate As a general rule, the statue of limitations extinguishes the remedy only. Although
the employment of Callanta on the alleged grounds of serious misconduct the remedy to enforce a right may be barred, that right may still be enforced by
and misappropriation of company funds amounting to P12k. some other available remedy, which is not barred.
 The application was approved and Callanta’s employment was
terminated. Additionally, the Court found that the reason behind Callanta’s delay in filing the
 Three years after his termination, Callanta filed a complaint for illegal action was due to the threat that he would be charged with estafa should he
dismissal with claims for reinstatement, backwages, and damages against pursue an action against Carnation.
Carnation.
 Carnation responded, alleging that his action is barred by prescription Wherefore, Carnation is ordered to pay petitioner Callanta backwages for three
since he filed the case three years after his termination. years without qualification and deduction. As for reinstatement, Carnation is now
 Labor Arbiter: Termination of Callanta is without valid cause; Carnation under a different management, hence, the decision will entirely matter on their
must reinstate Callanta with backwages of one year and all benefits own assumption of liabilities.
provided by law and company policy.
 NLRC: Set aside Labor Arbiter’s decision. Callanta’s complaint has already
prescribed.

ISSUE:
W/N Callanta’s complaint for illegal dismissal against Carnation has already
prescribed?