Teekay v. Concha (G.R. No. 185463. Feb 22, 2012)
CASE DIGEST: TEEKAY SHIPPING PHILS., INC.,and/or TEEKAY SHIPPING CANADA, Petitioners, v. RAMIER C. CONCHA Respondent.
HELD: Citing Section 30 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, petitioners maintained that all claims arising therefrom prescribes in three (3) years. Petitioners argue that since the aforesaid provision specifically set the prescription to three (3) years, the period provided under Article 1146 of the Civil Code cannot be made to apply.
FACTS: Ramier C. Concha was hired as an Able Seaman by petitioners under an employment contract for a period of eight (8) months. He was deployed to Canada. While he was removing rusty fragments during his deck assignment, a foreign particle accidentally entered his left eye, then the designated medical officer on board administered first aid treatment. As there was no improvement, he requested for a medical check-up in the hospital where he was diagnosed with Left Eye Acute Iritis.
After being deployed only for less than a month, private respondent was repatriated to the Philippines. He then underwent medical treatment. He was assessed to be unfit to work as a seafarer and thus he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal which was dismissed by the Labir Arbiter. He then filed another complaint in the NLRC.Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint for being time-barred. Relying on Article 291 of the Labor Code, they maintained that all money claims premised on, or arising from ones employment should be brought within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued, which was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter. On appeal, the LA's decision was reversed by the NLRC. Petitioners filed an appeal in the CA which dismissed the same. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Did the CA err in ruling that private respondents claims have not yet prescribed?
HELD: Citing Section 30 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract, petitioners maintained that all claims arising therefrom prescribes in three (3) years. Petitioners argue that since the aforesaid provision specifically set the prescription to three (3) years, the period provided under Article 1146 of the Civil Code cannot be made to apply.
Petitioners contend that even if private respondents claims are well-founded, the latter's cause of action accrued on or before 6 December 2000. Thus, his complaint should have been instituted within three (3) years from 6 December 2000 or before 6 December 2003. They further contend that even assuming that the running of the period of prescription began only on 28 May 2001, the date when private respondents first complaint was dismissed without prejudice, his claims would have prescribed on 28 May 2004. Since private respondent filed his complaint only on 13 December 2004, the same had clearly prescribed.
In Callanta v. Carnation Philippines, Inc.,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. 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. 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.
(2) Upon a quasi-delict.
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. 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.
DENIED.
