As a general rule, the seafarer is only allowed to recover any and all monetary claims within a period of three years from the date the cause of action accrues. The exception is illegal dismissal cases which can be filed within four years.
Employees have 3 years to recover their monetary claims arising out of employment.
The employee is only allowed to recover any and all monetary claims within a period of three years from the date the cause of action accrues. This so provided in the Labor Code, viz:
Article 305. MONEY CLAIMS
All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this [Labor] Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred…
Thus, any monetary claim beyond the 3-year period will no longer be enforceable. Beyond the 3-year period, the employee cannot anymore recover as they are “forever barred”
cause of action
The Labor Code does not provide for a provision on when the counting will start. It simply states that money claims become due “from the time the cause of action accrued.” A cause of action accrues only when “the party obligated refuses, expressly or impliedly, to comply with its duty.”[4]
A cause of action consists of three elements.
… a cause of action has three elements, to wit: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff.
It bears stressing that it is only when the last element occurs that a cause of action arises…[5]
Thus, the counting will vary depending on when the employer denied the employee’s monetary claim. Consequently, even if the monetary claim is beyond 3 years from the formal demand but there is no denial thereof within that time, the employee may still recover the monetary claims within the prescriptive period after the employer finally makes a denial.
… [the employee] repeatedly demanded payment from respondent Maersk [on different dates earlier than the October 1993 letter], 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. … [the employee’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.Serrano v. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc., G.R. No. 139420, 15 April 2001.
prescriptive period to be applied should be three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued in accordance with the Labor Code.
The dispute is the period of prescription of action for illegal dismissal. It will be noticed that in their Motion to Dismiss before the NLRC, petitioners allege that the prescriptive period to be applied should be three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued in accordance with the Labor Code. However, in their petition before this Court, they changed their stand and alleged that the applicable provision should be that which is stated in the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen because seafarers are not regular employees and as such, are not covered by the Labor Code.
In Callanta v. Carnation Philippines, Inc.,[13] this Court ruled that actions based on injury to rights prescribe in four (4) years under Article 1146 of the Civil Code rather than three (3) years as provided for the Labor Code. An action for damages involving a plaintiff separated from his employment for alleged unjustifiable causes is one for injury to the rights of the plaintiff, and must be brought within four (4) years.[14] Private respondent had gone to the Labor Arbiter on a charge, fundamentally, of illegal dismissal, of which his money claims form but an incidental part. Essentially, his complaint is one for injury to rights arising from his forced disembarkation.[15] Thus, Article 1146 is the applicable provision. It provides:
Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict;
It is a principle in American jurisprudence which, undoubtedly, is well-recognized in this jurisdiction that ones employment, profession, trade or calling is a property right, and the wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong.[16] The right is considered to be property within the protection of a constitutional guaranty of due process of law.[17]Clearly then, when one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or means of livelihood, the action instituted to contest the legality of ones dismissal from employment constitutes, in essence, an action predicated upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, as contemplated under Art. 1146 of the New Civil Code, which must be brought within four (4) years.[18]
Teekay Shipping Phils., Inc. and/or Teekay Shipping Canada vs. Ramier Concha ; G.R. No.185463; Second Division ; February 22,2012 ; Supreme Court Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez, Ponente
The day the action may be brought is the day a claim starts as a legal possibilityAnabe v. Asian Construction, G.R. No. 183233, December 23, 2009 , 609 SCRA 213, 221.
As in other causes of action, the prescriptive period for money claims is subject to interruption, and in view of the absence of an equivalent Labor Code provision for determining when said period may be interrupted, Article 1155 of the Civil Code is applicable. It states that:
Article 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the Court, when there is written extra-judicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.
Records reveal that after his disembarkation from the vessel MV Kyushu Spirit on 6 December 2000, private respondent filed on 28 May 2001 a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. His complaint was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter on the same date. In accordance with Section 16, Rule V of the NLRC Rules of Procedure[19], private respondent can re-file a case in the Arbitration Branch of origin. Since the filing of his first complaint on 28 May 2001 tolled the running of the period of prescription, both the NLRC and the CA were correct in ruling that the filing of respondents second complaint with money claims on 13 December 2004 was clearly filed on time.
Cadalin vs. POEA Administrator, we held that Article 291 covers all moneys claims from employer-employee relationship and is broader in scope that claims arising from a specific law. It is not limited to money claims recoverable under the Labor Code but applies also to claims of overseas contract workers. Article 291 provides that all money claims arising from employer-employee relations shall be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued, otherwise, these shall forever be barred. A cause of action accrues upon the categorical denial of claim. (Seafarer's) cause of action accrued on January 6, 1998, when Avantgarde denied his claim and so breached its obligation to (seafarer). (Seafarer) could not have a cause of action prior to this because his earlier requests were warded off by indefinite promises. The complaint filed on March 2, 2001 is beyond the three-year prescriptive period Lauro C. Degamo vs. Avantgarde Shipping Corp. et. al., G.R. No. 154460, November 22, 2005
Under Article 391 of the Civil Code, a missing seafarer can be declared legally dead only after a four year waiting period. The three year prescriptive period must be counted from the end of the four year waiting period. Thus, the filing of the complaint in six years is within the prescriptive period (four year waiting period plus the three year prescriptive period.) Imelda Pantollano vs. Korphil Shipmanagement, G.R. No. 169575, First Division, April 5, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment