Title
Arriola vs. Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 175689
Decision Date
Aug 13, 2014
A journalist claimed illegal dismissal after his column was removed; courts ruled he abandoned his job, and his claims, though timely, lacked merit.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 175689)

Facts:

Employment and Alleged Dismissal

George A. Arriola was employed by Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. in July 1986 as a correspondent and later became a section editor and writer. On November 15, 1999, his column, "Tinig ng Pamilyang OFWs," was removed from publication, and Arriola never returned to work. He alleged that he was illegally dismissed by the company.

Filing of Complaint

On November 15, 2002, Arriola filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries, moral and exemplary damages, actual damages, attorney's fees, and full backwages with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). He argued that he was a regular employee and that his rights to security of tenure and due process were violated.

Respondents' Defense

Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. and Miguel G. Belmonte denied Arriola's claims, asserting that he voluntarily absented himself from work and later joined a rival newspaper, Imbestigador, to write a similar column. They argued that Arriola abandoned his employment.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

The Labor Arbiter ruled that Arriola abandoned his job and that his money claims had prescribed under Article 291 of the Labor Code, which requires that money claims be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued. Arriola filed his complaint three years and one day after his alleged dismissal, leading the Arbiter to dismiss his claims.

NLRC and Court of Appeals' Rulings

The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeals also ruled that Arriola was not illegally dismissed and that his claims had prescribed. The appellate court found that Arriola abandoned his employment and that Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. had the prerogative to remove his column.

Issue:

  1. Whether Arriola's money claims for backwages, damages, and attorney's fees had prescribed.
  2. Whether Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. illegally dismissed Arriola.

Ruling:

  1. Prescription of Money Claims: The Supreme Court ruled that Arriola's claims for backwages, damages, and attorney's fees had not prescribed. The Court held that the prescriptive period for filing an illegal dismissal complaint is four years under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, not the three-year period under Article 291 of the Labor Code. Since Arriola filed his complaint three years and one day after his alleged dismissal, his claims were filed within the four-year prescriptive period.

  2. Illegal Dismissal: The Court found that Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. did not illegally dismiss Arriola. The removal of his column was a management prerogative and did not constitute termination of his employment. The Court agreed with the lower courts' findings that Arriola abandoned his employment by failing to report for work for three years and one day before filing his complaint.

Ratio:

  1. Prescription Period for Illegal Dismissal Claims: The prescriptive period for filing illegal dismissal claims is four years under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, not three years under Article 291 of the Labor Code. Claims for backwages and damages due to illegal dismissal are governed by the four-year prescriptive period because they arise from an "injury to the rights" of the employee.

  2. Management Prerogative: Employers have the prerogative to determine which columns or sections to include in their publications. The removal of Arriola's column did not constitute illegal dismissal since his employment was not contingent on the existence of the column.

  3. Abandonment of Employment: Abandonment requires two elements: (a) failure to report for work without justifiable reason and (b) a clear intention to sever employer-employee relations. Arriola's failure to report for work for over three years and his delayed filing of the complaint demonstrated his intent to abandon his employment.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court denied Arriola's petition and affirmed the rulings of the lower courts. The Court held that Arriola abandoned his employment and that his claims for backwages and damages were filed within the four-year prescriptive period but were meritless due to his abandonment.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.