Case Digest (G.R. No. 70615)
Facts:
Callanta v. Carnation Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 70615, October 28, 1986, Supreme Court Second Division, Fernan, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Virgilio Callanta; private respondent is Carnation Philippines, Inc.; the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is also a respondent in the petition for certiorari.Petitioner was hired by Carnation in January 1974 as a salesman. On June 1, 1979, Carnation terminated his employment after obtaining from the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE), Regional Office No. X, a clearance to dismiss him on alleged serious misconduct and misappropriation of approximately P12,000. MOLE Regional Director Felizardo G. Baterbonia approved the clearance on June 26, 1979, with the termination made effective June 1, 1979.
On July 5, 1982, petitioner filed with MOLE Regional Office No. X a complaint for illegal dismissal seeking reinstatement, backwages and damages. In its October 5, 1982 position paper Carnation pleaded prescription, asserting the complaint was filed more than three years after the June 1, 1979 dismissal. Labor Arbiter Pedro C. Ramos, on March 24, 1983, found the dismissal without just cause and ordered reinstatement with one year backwages; failure to comply would entitle petitioner to full backwages and fringe benefits without loss of seniority.
Carnation appealed to the NLRC which, in a decision dated February 25, 1985, set aside the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint as prescribed, applying Articles 291 and 292 of the Labor Code. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which took the case and treated the sole issue as whether actions for illegal dismissal prescribe within three years under Ar...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does an action for illegal dismissal prescribe in three years under Articles 291 and 292 of the Labor Code?
- If not barred by prescription, was petitioner illegally dismissed by Carnation?
- If reinstatement cannot practicably be effected because the business was later taken over by another corporation, w...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)