Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84112:59386&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:53:20+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 190828, March 16, 2015 - ONOFRE V. MONTERO, EDGARDO N. ESTRAÑERO, RENING P. PADRE, GABRIEL A. MADERA, HERMINIO T. TACLA, NELSON C. VILORIA, DEMETRIO Q. PAJARILLO, ALFREDO R. AGANON, REYNALDO AVILA, ALBERT T. RUIZ, NESTOR Y. YAGO, HARTY M. TUPASI, AGUSTIN R. AVILA, JR. OR MARCOS R. AVILA, BONIFACIO B. GAANO, JOSELITO D. CUENTA, JONAS P. ESTILONG, DOMINADOR C. CANARIA, GENARO C. RONDARIS, HERARDO M. DULAY, FRANKLIN A. RAVINA, JR., AND RUBEN C. CABELLO, Petitioners, v. TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., AND SANTIAGO RONDARIS, MENCORP TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC., VIRGINIA R. MENDOZA AND REYNALDO MENDOZA, Respondents.
ONOFRE V. MONTERO, EDGARDO N. ESTRAÑERO, RENING P. PADRE, GABRIEL A. MADERA, HERMINIO T. TACLA, NELSON C. VILORIA, DEMETRIO Q. PAJARILLO, ALFREDO R. AGANON, REYNALDO AVILA, ALBERT T. RUIZ, NESTOR Y. YAGO, HARTY M. TUPASI, AGUSTIN R. AVILA, JR. OR MARCOS R. AVILA, BONIFACIO B. GAANO, JOSELITO D. CUENTA, JONAS P. ESTILONG, DOMINADOR C. CANARIA, GENARO C. RONDARIS, HERARDO M. DULAY, FRANKLIN A. RAVINA, JR., AND RUBEN C. CABELLO, Petitioners, v. TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., AND SANTIAGO RONDARIS, MENCORP TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC., VIRGINIA R. MENDOZA AND REYNALDO MENDOZA, Respondents.
This appeal by petition for review1 seeks to annul and set aside the Decision2 dated August 28, 2009 and Resolution3 dated December 11, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 106260, which affirmed the Decision4dated March 31, 2008 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC CA No. 046325-05 (08), and its Resolution5 dated September 5, 2008, denying the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. The NLRC decision vacated and set aside the Decision6 dated June 29, 2005 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) on the ground that the consolidated complaints for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and money claims have already prescribed.
Four years later, several complaints for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal with money claims, damages and attorney’s fees were filed against TTCI, Santiago, MENCORP and its General Manager Virginia Mendoza, including the latter’s husband Reynaldo Mendoza (collectively called the respondents), before the LA from June to July 2002.18 Accordingly, these complaints were consolidated.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE, and the complaints dismissed on ground of prescription.
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration26 dated May 16, 2008, but it was denied.27 Hence, they filed a petition for certiorari28 before the CA.
Here, the illegal dismissal case was filed only in June 2002 or for more than four (4) years and seven (7) months from the time petitioners received the notices of their dismissal in November and October 1997. Clearly, the four-year prescriptive period has already elapsed.
The main issue in this case is whether or not the petitioners’ complaints for illegal dismissal have already prescribed.
Nevertheless, the Court has thoroughly reviewed the records in this case and finds that the NLRC did not commit any grave abuse of its discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in rendering its decision in favor of the respondents. The CA acted in accord with the evidence on record and case law when it dismissed the petition and affirmed the assailed decision and resolution of the NLRC.
In the case at bar, October 26, 1997 and November 24, 1997 appear on record to be the dates when the petitioners’ employment were terminated by TTCI. The antecedent facts that gave rise to the petitioners’ dismissal from employment are not disputed in this case. There is no question about the fact that the petitioners’ complaints for unfair labor practice and money claims have already prescribed. The petitioners however argue that their complaints for illegal dismissal were duly filed within the four-year prescriptive period since the period during which their cases were pending should be deducted from the period of prescription. On the other hand, the respondents insist that said complaints have already prescribed. Hence, the pivotal question in resolving the issues hinges on the resolution of whether the period during which the petitioners’ cases were pending should be excluded from the period of prescription.
In like manner, while the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal before the LA interrupted the running of the prescriptive period, its voluntary withdrawal left the petitioners in exactly the same position as though no complaint had been filed at all. The withdrawal of their complaint effectively erased the tolling of the reglementary period.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 28, 2009 and Resolution dated December 11, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 106260 are AFFIRMED.
* Additional Member per Raffle dated January 12, 2015 vice Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Fernanda Lampas Peralta concurring; id. at 31-44.
4 Penned by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III, with Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioner Tito F. Genilo concurring; id. at 197-208.
6 Issued by Labor Arbiter Irenarco R. Rimando; id. at 121-142.
34Victory Liner, Inc. v. Race, 548 Phil. 282, 293 (2007).
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff.
36Callanta v. Carnation Philippines, Inc., 229 Phil. 279, 289 (1986).
37Art. 1155. 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.
38 543 Phil. 371 (2007).
41 Supra note 38, at 379.

References: V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.