VIRGILIO CALLANTA VS.

CARNATION PHILIPPINES,
INC. AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 70615
October 28, 1986
Digest by: Lanz Olives
Petitioners: Virgilio Callanta
Respondent: Carnation Philippines and National Labor Relations
Commission
Petition: Petition for certiorari
FACTS:
1. Virgilio Callanta is employed by Carnation Philippines, Inc.
as a salesman.
2. Carnation filed an application for clearance to terminate the
employment of Virgilio Callanta for serious misconduct and
misappropriation of company funds amounting to 12,000.
3. On June 26, 1979 the Ministry of Labor and Employment
approved the said clearance so Virgilio Callanta was
terminated effective June 1, 1979.
4. On July 5, 1982, Callanta filed with MOLE, a complaint for
illegal dismissal with clains for reinstatement, back wages
and damages against respondent Carnation.
5. Carnation alleged that the complaint is barred
by prescription for having been filed more than
3 years after the date of Callantas dismissal.

6. Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding the

termination of Callantas employment to be
without valid cause and ordered reinstatement.
7. Carnation appealed to NLRC. NLRC set aside the
decision of the Labor Arbiter and it declared that
the complaint for illegal dismissal filed by
Virgilio Callanta to have already prescribed.
Labor Code provides that:
Art. 291. Offenses. Offenses penalized
under this Code and the rules and
regulations
issued
pursuant thereto shall prescribe in
three [3] years.
Art. 292. Money claims. All money claims
arising from employeremployee
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.
8. Callanta appealed to the supreme court and
alleged that the period has not yet prescribed
because the applicable provision is Art. 1146 of
the civil code.
The following actions must be instituted within
four years.

[1]
Upon an injury to the lights of the
plaintiff.
xxx

xxx

xxx

ISSUE/S:
1. WON an action for illegal dismissal prescribes in three years
pursuant to Articles 291 and 292 of the Labor Code?
RULING/ RATIO:
1. NO. The said action will prescribe in four years based on
Article 1146 of the civil code. In the case of illegal dismissal,
no penalty of fine nor imprisonment is imposed on the
employer upon a finding of illegality in the dismissal. By the
very nature of the reliefs sought, therefore, an action for
illegal dismissal cannot be generally categorized as an
"offense" as used under Article 291 of the Labor Code,
which must be brought within the period of three [3] years
from the time the cause of action accrued.
The case of Valencia vs. Cebu Portland Cement, et al., 106
Phil. 732, a 1959 case cited by petitioner, is applicable in the
instant case insofar as it concerns the issue of prescription of
actions.
In said case, this Court had occasion to hold that an action
for damages involving a plaintiff seperated 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.

Art. 1146. The following actions must be instituted

within four years.
[1] Upon an injury to the rights of
the plaintiff
Furthermore, it is a principle in American jurisprudence which,
undoubtedly, is well-recognized in this jurisdiction that one's
employment, profession, trade or calling is a "property right," and
the wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong. The right
is considered to be property within the protection of a constitutional
guaranty of due process of law. Clearly then, when one is arbitrarily
and unjustly deprived of his job or means of livelihood, the action
instituted to contest the legality of one's 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.
DISPOSITIVE: Virgilio Callanta won.
DOCTRINE: The right is considered to be property within the
protection of a constitutional guaranty of due process of law. 12
Clearly then, when one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job
or means of livelihood, the action instituted to contest the legality of
one's 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.

7.
8.
9.
DIGEST RULES:
1. Please dont copy and paste internet digest
2. Maximum of two (2) pages only
3. FORMAT: should look like photocopied SCRA
a. Font: Times New Roman
b. Size: 11
c. Margin: Narrow/ 0.5 in all sides
d. Orientation: Landscape
e. Columns: two
f. Page size: US Letter/ Short/ 8.5x11
4. All files should be in .doc or .docx
5. FILE NAME SHOULD BE CASE NO. TITLE
Ex. 001 De La Salle University v. Miguel Caponong
For the compilation will be made easy
6. If there are complains about poor writing/ digesting skills

10.
11.
12.
13.

a. 1st complain re-write digest

b. 2nd complain compile the digest for 2 consecutive
weeks
c. 3rd complain will not be allowed to join the digest
group and should not receive any digest copy
Make the facts short and precise
The issue should be listed is only applicable to the topic
indicated in the syllabus
Everything should be in bullet or numbered form EXCEPT if
there is only one issue
Submit digest on time for efficient collation of cases
DIGEST WILL NOT BE POSTED IN OUR GROUPS BUT
SHOULD BE EMAILED TO THE WEEK COMPILER
The assigned student who will compile cases should upload
it on the same day in .doc or .docx and .pdf file
Below is the digest sample