G.R. No. 175689 - Arriola vs. Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc.

George A. Arriola was employed by Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. since July 1986 and held various positions, eventually becoming a section editor and writer.
He was assigned as correspondent for locations in Olongapo City and Zambales and was known for his regular column, “aTinig ng Pamilyang OFWs.”

On November 15, 1999, the newspaper removed his column from publication.
After the removal, Arriola did not return to work, an action he later characterized as an illegal dismissal.

On November 15, 2002, Arriola filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) seeking relief for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries, backwages, and damages (actual, moral, exemplary), as well as attorney’s fees.
In his position paper, he alleged that his dismissal was arbitrary and that his rights to security of tenure and due process had been violated.
Arriola further contended that he was ordered by his employer to stop reporting for work and to claim his separation pay, presenting a faxed statement of account as evidence from the company’s accounting head.

Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. and co-respondent Miguel G. Belmonte denied the allegation of illegal dismissal, asserting that Arriola abandoned his employment.
They argued that Arriola’s absence from work began around mid-November 1999 and that he eventually transferred to a rival newspaper, Imbestigador, to write a different column (“aBoses ng Pamilyang OFWs”).
Evidence cited included a certification from Imbestigador’s Managing Editor, indicating that Arriola began writing for them on February 17, 2003.

The Labor Arbiter found that Arriola’s complaint was filed three years and one day after the alleged dismissal, holding that laches had set in and that his money claims had prescribed under Article 291 of the Labor Code.
The NLRC upheld the Labor Arbiter’s findings, affirming that there was no illegal dismissal and that the complaint was barred on the merits of prescription for money claims.
The Court of Appeals also determined that the removal of the column was within the management prerogative and did not amount to termination, and that Arriola had effectively abandoned his employment.

Arriola, in his petition for review on certiorari, disputed the findings of abandonment and maintained that he was illegally dismissed when his column was removed.
He further contended that while his claim for unpaid salaries was time-barred under Article 291, his claims for backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees should be calculated under the four-year prescriptive period provided by Article 1146 of the Civil Code.
Respondents countered that all his money claims, filed late, were barred, and argued that questions of fact regarding dismissal and abandonment were not proper for review on certiorari.

Unpaid salaries are subject to the three-year prescriptive period under Article 291 of the Labor Code.
Backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees arising from an alleged illegal dismissal fall under the four-year prescriptive period under Article 1146 of the Civil Code.

Whether Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. illegally dismissed Arriola when it removed his column, or whether such removal constitutes a management prerogative that does not amount to termination.

Whether Arriola’s delay in filing his complaint (three years and one day after his alleged dismissal) should be excused or whether it constitutes abandonment of employment.