G.R. No. 182622 - Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Pingol

Roberto R. Pingol was hired by PLDT in 1979 as a maintenance technician.
On April 13, 1999, while still employed, Pingol was admitted to The Medical City in Mandaluyong City for treatment of "paranoid personality disorder" brought on by financial and marital problems.
He was discharged from the hospital on May 14, 1999, but his unstable mental condition persisted, affecting his work attendance.

After his discharge, Pingol reported for work but increasingly absented himself due to his mental state.
From September 16, 1999 to December 31, 1999, he was absent from work without official leave.
PLDT sent notices with warning that, pursuant to PLDT Systems Practice A-007, absences without authorized leave for seven consecutive days would result in termination.
On January 1, 2000, PLDT terminated his employment on the grounds of unauthorized absences and abandonment of office.

On March 29, 2004, Pingol filed a Complaint for Constructive Dismissal and Monetary Claims against PLDT, alleging that his dismissal was executed hastily.
PLDT responded by filing a motion to dismiss, contending that the complaint was filed after the prescriptive periods had lapsed—four years for illegal dismissal claims (per Article 1146 of the Civil Code) and three years for monetary claims (per Article 291 of the Labor Code).
Pingol countered that the prescriptive computation should disregard the years 2001–2003 during which he persistently inquired about his financial entitlements from PLDT and received only empty promises.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) issued an order on July 30, 2004, granting PLDT’s motion to dismiss on prescription grounds, emphasizing that both the illegal dismissal and money claims were filed beyond their respective statutory periods.
Pingol appealed the dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which, in its November 15, 2006 Resolution, reversed the LA’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.
PLDT’s subsequent motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied in the January 31, 2007 Resolution.
Unsatisfied, PLDT elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which reaffirmed the NLRC's Resolution in the December 21, 2007 Decision.
PLDT’s motion for reconsideration of the CA decision was later denied on April 18, 2008.
Finally, PLDT petitioned for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Whether Pingol’s complaint for constructive dismissal and money claims was filed within the prescriptive period—specifically, four years for illegal dismissal under Article 1146 of the Civil Code and three years for money claims under Article 291 of the Labor Code.
Whether the date of Pingol's alleged dismissal, as admitted in his own pleadings (January 1, 2000), effectively determined the starting point of the prescriptive period.
Whether the continuous follow-ups by Pingol from 2001 to 2003 with PLDT could be treated as a valid interruption (tolling) of the running prescriptive period.

Whether the Court of Appeals improperly decided a substantive question contrary to established law or departed from the usual course of judicial proceedings by calling for an exercise of supervisory power.
Whether the judicial admission of the date of dismissal should control the determination of the prescriptive period, given that Pingol did not deny such admission.