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.
illegal dismissal
journalist
employer

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175689)

Factual Background

Arriola was employed by Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. beginning in July 1986 and served in various editorial capacities, including as section editor and columnist. He wrote the column "Tinig ng Pamilyang OFWs" until its removal from publication on November 15, 1999. After the column was removed, Arriola did not report for work. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, nonpayment of salaries/wages, moral and exemplary damages, actual damages, attorney's fees, and full backwages with the National Labor Relations Commission on November 15, 2002.

Parties' Positions at the NLRC

Arriola alleged that his removal from publication constituted an arbitrary and illegal dismissal and that he remained a regular employee entitled to security of tenure and due process. He presented, among other things, a faxed statement of account showing a computation of separation pay as of November 30, 1999. Respondents denied illegal dismissal and asserted that Arriola had suddenly absented himself in November 1999, ignored calls and messages, and subsequently wrote for a rival newspaper, Imbestigador, under the column "Boses ng Pamilyang OFWs."

Labor Arbiter's Ruling

Labor Arbiter Fatima Jambaro-Franco dismissed Arriola's complaint for lack of merit in a decision dated July 16, 2003. The Arbiter found that laches had set in because Arriola waited three years and one day to file suit. The Arbiter concluded that Arriola abandoned his employment to work for a rival and noted Arriola's admission that he filed the illegal dismissal complaint upon counsel's advice. The Arbiter also held that Arriola's money claims were time-barred under Article 291, Labor Code, which prescribes a three-year period for money claims arising from employer-employee relations.

National Labor Relations Commission and Court of Appeals Proceedings

The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision and denied reconsideration. Arriola sought relief by petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found that Arriola raised principally factual issues beyond the scope of a certiorari petition but resolved those facts in the interest of substantial justice. It ruled that the removal of Arriola's column did not terminate his employment because management retained the prerogative to determine which columns to publish and Arriola's employment was not contingent on the continued existence of that column. The appellate court also found abandonment and applied Article 291 to bar his money claims, concluding that his complaint was filed one day late.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court stated the issues as: (I) whether Arriola's money claims had prescribed; and (II) whether Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. illegally dismissed Arriola.

Supreme Court Disposition

The petition for review on certiorari was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision dated August 9, 2006 and resolution dated November 24, 2006. The Court reversed only the appellate court's conclusion insofar as it held that Arriola's claims for backwages and damages had prescribed; it held instead that those claims remained timely when filed.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Prescription

The Court analyzed the applicable prescriptive statutes and controlling precedents. It explained that Article 291, Labor Code, prescribes a three-year period for money claims arising from employer-employee relations, and that Article 291 applies to unpaid salaries and similar wage claims. By contrast, claims for backwages and damages consequent to illegal dismissal are not governed by Article 291 but by Article 1146, Civil Code, which prescribes a four-year prescriptive period for actions upon injury to the rights of the plaintiff. The Court relied on Callanta v. Carnation Philippines, Inc. for the proposition that an action contesting illegal dismissal constitutes an action upon injury to rights and therefore prescribes in four years. The Court applied Texon Manufacturing v. Millena as further authority distinguishing Article 291 and Article 1146 in resolving mixed money and dismissal claims. Applying these principles, the Court held that Arriola's unpaid salary claims were barred by Article 291 because he filed three years and one day after his alleged loss of salary; but his claims for backwages, actual, moral and exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees arising from an alleged illegal dismissal were filed within the four-year period of Article 1146 and therefore had not prescribed.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Illegal Dismissal and Abandonment

The Court refused to reexamine factual findings except in limited circumstances and applied Rule 45, Section 1, Rules of Court, which confines petitions for review on certiorari to questions of law. The Court reiterated the principles delimiting review of factual determinations and enumerated the exceptions permitting factual review, none of which it found applicable. It therefore deferred to the Labor Arbiter's and the NLRC's findings as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court agreed with the courts below that the removal of Arriola's column was not tantamount to termination because a newspaper's choice of content falls squarely within management prerogative and Arriola remained as section editor. The Court adopted the established e

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms