The Supreme Court ruled that Roberto R. Pingol’s complaint for constructive dismissal against Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) was filed beyond the prescriptive period. Because Pingol himself stated in his complaint that he was dismissed on January 1, 2000, his filing on March 29, 2004, exceeded the four-year limit for actions based on injury to rights. This decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines when pursuing legal claims, as failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the case, regardless of its merits. This ruling underscores the principle that even valid claims can be forfeited if legal actions are not initiated within the prescribed timeframe.

The Case of the Belated Complaint: When Does the Clock Start Ticking?

In 1979, Roberto R. Pingol was hired by Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) as a maintenance technician. Years later, after facing personal difficulties, Pingol was hospitalized and later discharged. Subsequently, he experienced unauthorized absences, leading PLDT to terminate his services on January 1, 2000, citing abandonment of office. However, it wasn’t until March 29, 2004, more than four years after his dismissal, that Pingol filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and monetary claims against PLDT. The central legal question revolves around whether Pingol’s complaint was filed within the prescribed period, as stipulated by the Civil Code and the Labor Code.

PLDT argued that Pingol’s cause of action had prescribed, pointing out that the complaint was filed four years and three months after his dismissal. Pingol countered that the prescriptive period should not include the years 2001 to 2003, during which he claims to have been inquiring about his financial benefits from PLDT. The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially granted PLDT’s motion to dismiss, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Callanta vs. Carnation Phils., which mandates that complaints for illegal dismissal must be filed within four years from the date of dismissal. This decision was later reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which favored Pingol, arguing that PLDT had not categorically denied his claims. Unsatisfied, PLDT elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which ultimately affirmed the NLRC’s decision.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the CA’s ruling, ultimately siding with PLDT. The Court emphasized that Article 1146 of the New Civil Code requires actions upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff to be instituted within four years. In the context of illegal dismissal, this prescriptive period begins from the date of dismissal. Regarding money claims, Article 291 of the Labor Code mandates that all money claims arising from employer-employee relations must be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued.

A critical element in resolving this dispute was determining when Pingol’s cause of action accrued. The Supreme Court reiterated the established jurisprudence that a cause of action consists of (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff, (2) an obligation on the part of the defendant to respect that right, and (3) an act or omission by the defendant that violates the plaintiff’s right. Pingol contended that his cause of action did not accrue on January 1, 2000, because he was not formally dismissed nor were his monetary claims categorically denied by PLDT on that date. He also argued that his continuous follow-ups with PLDT from 2001 to 2003 should be considered in calculating the prescriptive period.

PLDT countered that Pingol himself stated in his complaint that he was dismissed on January 1, 2000, a fact he never contradicted. The Supreme Court agreed with PLDT, emphasizing the principle of judicial admissions. According to Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court, admissions made by a party in their pleadings are conclusive and do not require further evidence, unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. The Court cited Pepsi Cola Bottling Company v. Guanzon, highlighting that a complaint may be dismissed if it is apparent on its face that the action has prescribed, especially when the plaintiff himself alleged the date of unlawful dismissal.

In this case, Pingol’s admission that he was dismissed on January 1, 2000, was crucial. The Supreme Court noted that the complaint was filed on March 29, 2004, four years and three months after the admitted date of dismissal. Respondent never denied making such admission or raised palpable mistake as the reason therefor. This acknowledgment of the dismissal date, coupled with the delayed filing of the complaint, led the Court to conclude that the action had indeed prescribed.

The Labor Code lacks specific provisions on when a claim for illegal dismissal or a monetary claim accrues, thus the general law on prescription, Article 1150 of the Civil Code applies. Article 1150 stipulates that the prescriptive period for all kinds of actions, when there is no special provision which ordains otherwise, shall be counted from the day they may be brought. The Court determined that January 1, 2000, was the date Pingol was no longer allowed to perform his job, making it the day his cause of action accrued. Therefore, the LA correctly ruled that the complaint was filed beyond the prescriptive period.

Furthermore, the Court addressed Pingol’s claim that his follow-ups with PLDT tolled the running of the prescriptive period. Article 1155 of the Civil Code states that the prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the Court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor. The Supreme Court, citing International Broadcasting Corporation v. Panganiban, clarified that this provision applies to labor cases. Since Pingol did not make any written extrajudicial demand, nor did PLDT make any written acknowledgment of its alleged obligation, the claimed “follow-ups” did not interrupt the prescriptive period. He also did not offer sufficient proof to support that claim.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the Constitution’s commitment to social justice and the protection of the working class. However, it emphasized that not every labor dispute is automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has rights, and justice must be dispensed based on established facts, applicable law, and doctrine. In this case, Pingol’s delay in filing the complaint barred his remedy and extinguished his right of action.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Roberto Pingol’s complaint for constructive dismissal and monetary claims against PLDT was filed within the prescriptive period as required by law. The court needed to determine when Pingol’s cause of action accrued and whether any circumstances interrupted the running of the prescriptive period.
What is the prescriptive period for filing an illegal dismissal case?	The prescriptive period for filing an illegal dismissal case is four years from the date of dismissal, based on Article 1146 of the Civil Code, which covers actions upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff. For money claims arising from employment, Article 291 of the Labor Code sets a three-year prescriptive period.
When does the prescriptive period begin to run?	The prescriptive period begins to run from the day the cause of action accrues, which is the day the employee is dismissed or when the employer commits an act that violates the employee’s rights. In this case, the prescriptive period started on January 1, 2000, the date Pingol stated he was dismissed.
What is a judicial admission, and how did it affect the case?	A judicial admission is a statement made by a party in the course of legal proceedings that is accepted as evidence. In this case, Pingol’s statement in his complaint that he was dismissed on January 1, 2000, was considered a judicial admission, which he could not later contradict unless he could prove it was made through palpable mistake.
Can the prescriptive period be interrupted or tolled?	Yes, the prescriptive period can be interrupted or tolled under certain circumstances, such as filing an action in court, making a written extrajudicial demand, or receiving a written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor, as per Article 1155 of the Civil Code. However, Pingol’s verbal follow-ups were not sufficient to interrupt the prescriptive period.
What evidence did the court consider in making its decision?	The court primarily considered Pingol’s own admission in his complaint regarding the date of his dismissal, as well as the dates of his alleged follow-ups with PLDT. The court also examined the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Labor Code regarding prescriptive periods and the interruption thereof.
What was the final outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court granted PLDT’s petition, reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and dismissed Pingol’s complaint. The Court held that Pingol’s complaint was filed beyond the prescriptive period and therefore was barred by law.
What is the significance of this ruling?	The ruling underscores the importance of filing legal claims within the prescribed periods and the binding nature of judicial admissions. It serves as a reminder to employees to promptly pursue their legal remedies to avoid losing their right to seek redress.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the importance of adhering to prescribed legal timelines. It clarifies that a party’s own admissions can be decisive in determining the outcome of a case, particularly when those admissions pertain to critical dates that affect the prescriptive period. This case serves as a cautionary tale for employees, emphasizing the need to act promptly when pursuing legal claims against their employers.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company [PLDT] vs. Roberto R. Pingol, G.R. No. 182622, September 08, 2010