G.R. No. 191261 - People vs. Tumambing y Tamayo

Petitioners: Twenty-one employees of Times Transportation Co., Inc. (TTCI) working as bus drivers, conductors, mechanics, welders, security guards, and utility personnel.
Respondents: TTCI, its management represented by Santiago Rondaris (President and Chairman of the Board), Mencorp Transport Systems, Inc. (through the transfer of assets), and other officers such as Virginia Mendoza and Reynaldo Mendoza.
Union Formation: In 1995, the rank-and-file employees of TTCI organized the Times Employees Union (TEU), which was later certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining unit within the company.

In March 1997, TEU members went on strike.
With Labor Secretary Leonardo A. Quisimbing’s intervention and the certification for compulsory arbitration, a return-to-work order (March 10, 1997) was issued, ending the strike and preventing further escalation.

On August 23, 1997, TTCI’s Board of Directors approved the gradual disposal of assets in response to mounting business losses.
A company-wide retrenchment program was adopted, effective October 1, 1997, empowering Santiago Rondaris to determine the number of excess employees.
Approval and subsequent transfer of 25 TTCI buses and their Certificates of Public Convenience to Mencorp Transport Systems, Inc. via a Deed of Sale dated December 12, 1997.

Following the asset disposal, several union members received retrenchment notices effective 30 days from September 16, 1997.
A renewed strike was declared by TEU on October 17, 1997, leading TTCI to issue termination notices for alleged illegal participation in the strike.

Two termination notices were issued: one dated October 26, 1997 (terminating 106 workers) and a revised list dated November 24, 1997 (increasing dismissals to 119 employees).

On December 4, 1997, TTCI informed the Department of Labor and Employment Regional Office I of its impending closure due to heavy business losses.

Petitioners including EstraAero, Pajarillo, Padre, Avila, Avila, Jr., Tupasi, Cuenta, Dulay, Yago, and Aganon filed complaints for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, and money claims before the NLRC.
These complaints were consolidated (NLRC RAB-I-01-1007) but later withdrawn in March 1999 following a motion by TEU’s counsel.

New complaints for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal with money claims, damages, and attorney’s fees were filed between June and July 2002 against TTCI, Santiago, Mencorp, and certain management personnel.
Respondents raised the defenses of prescription (time-barred claims) and a lack of employer-employee relationship, particularly for Mencorp which argued it did not directly employ the petitioners post-asset transfer.

The LA dismissed complaints for unfair labor practice and money claims based on prescription.
For illegal dismissal, the LA dismissed some claims on prescription grounds while awarding separation pay and backwages to ten petitioners, reasoning that the eight-month pendency of the cases should be excluded from the four-year prescriptive period.

On appeal, the NLRC vacated and set aside the LA’s selective application of the prescription rule, holding that all the complaints had fully prescribed.
The NLRC emphasized that the pendency period of the cases was not a valid ground for tolling the statutory prescriptive period since its commencement and end were not clearly defined and, in fact, extended over almost three years.

A motion for reconsideration filed on May 16, 2008, by the petitioners was denied.
The petitioners then elevated the issue via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on August 28, 2009.
Throughout the proceedings, the central factual dispute revolved around whether the filing and subsequent withdrawal of earlier complaints could toll the running of the four-year prescriptive period.

Petitioners contended that the period during which their cases were pending should have been deducted from the four-year prescriptive period for filing claims for illegal dismissal.
Respondents maintained that the complaints, particularly for illegal dismissal (with termination dates in October and November 1997), were filed well beyond the four-year deadline.
The factual record clearly shows that the antecedent events leading to the dismissal were undisputed, and the proper computation of the prescriptive period is central to the dispute.

Whether the petitioners’ complaints for illegal dismissal, along with claims for separation pay, retirement benefits, and damages, have prescribed.
Whether the period during which the petitioners’ cases were pending (specifically a case filed and later withdrawn) should be excluded from or toll the four-year prescriptive period.
Whether the withdrawal of the previously filed labor case effectively resets the prescriptive period, leaving the petitioners with no valid cause of action.