Almira xxx

Posted by / 24-Jun-2014 21:26

Almira xxx

All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three [3] years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise, they shall be forever barred. Upon approval on June 26, 1979 by MOLE Regional Director Felizardo G. any violation of the provisions of this code declared to be unlawful or penal in nature shall be punished with a fine of not less than One Thousand Pesos [P1,000.00] nor more than Ten Thousand Pesos [10,000.00], or imprisonment of not less than three [3] months nor more than three [3] years, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court." [Emphasis supplied.] The confusion arises over the use of the term "illegal dismissal" which creates the impression that termination of an employment without just cause constitutes an offense. It must be noted, however that unlike in cases of commission of any of the probihited activities during strikes or lockouts under Article 265, unfair labor practices under Article 248, 249 and 250 and illegal recruitment activities under Article 38, among others, which the Code itself declares to be unlawful, termination of an employment without just or valid cause is not categorized as an unlawful practice. Petitioner further claims that an action for illegal dismissal is a more serious violation of the rights of an employee as it deprives him of his means of livelihood; thus, it should correspondingly have a prescriptive period longer than the three 13] years provided for in "money claims." Public respondent, on the other hand, counters with the arguments that a case for illegal dismissal falls under the general category of "offenses penalized under this Code and the rules and regulations pursuant thereto" provided under Article 291 or a money claim under Article 292, so that petitioner's complaint for illegal dismissal filed on July 5, 1982, or three [3] years, one [1] month and five [5] days after his alleged dismissal on June 1, 1979, was filed beyond the three-year prescriptive period as provided under Articles 291 and 292 of the Labor Code, hence, barred by prescription; that while it is admittedly a more serious offense as it involves an employee's means of livelihood, there is no logic in assuming that it has a longer prescriptive period, as naturally, one who is truly aggrieved would immediately seek the redress of his grievance; that assuming arguendo that the law does not provide for a prescriptive period for the enforcement of petitioner's right, it is nevertheless beyond dispute that the said right has already lapsed into a stale demand; and that considering the seriousness of the act committed by petitioner, private respondent was justified in terminating the employment. Verily, the dismissal without just cause of an employee from his employment constitutes a violation of the Labor Code and its implementing rules and regulations. Such violation, however, does not amount to an "offense" as understood under Article 291 of the Labor Code. Respondent Carnation was therefore ordered to reinstate Virgilio Callanta to his former position with backwages of one [1] year without qualification including all fringe benefits provided for by law and company policy, within ten [10] days from receipt of the decision. All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three [3] years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise, they shall be forever barred.

xxx xxx xxx Petitioner Virgilio Callanta was employed by private respondent Carnation Philippines, Inc.

As a statutory provision on limitations of actions, Articles 291 and 292 go to matters of remedy and not to the destruction of fundamental rights.

As a general rule, a statute of limitation extinguishes the remedy only.

In its broad sense, an offense is an illegal act which does not amount to a crime as defined in the penal law, but which by statute carries with it a penalty similar to those imposed by law for the punishment of a crime.

It is in this sense that a general penalty clause is provided under Article 289 of the Labor Code which provides that "...

Almira xxx-85Almira xxx-42Almira xxx-7