Callanta v.
Carnation Philippines  Petitioner appeals to SC stating:
Facts:
 Petitioner Virgilio Callanta was employed by respondent
Carnation Philippines Inc. in Jan. 1974 as a salesman in
Agusan del Sur area.
 However, on June 1, 1979, respondent filed with Ministry Of
Labor and Employment (MOLE) to terminate the
employment of petitioner on the grounds of serious
misconduct and misappropriation of company funds
amounting to 12k.
 On June 26, 1979, MOLE director Felizardo Baterbonia
approved this hence making the June 1, 1979 application
effective as termination of petitioner’s employment.
 On July 5, 1982 petitioner filed also with MOLE alleging
that it is illegal dismissal with claims of reinstatement,
backwages and damages which was approved by Labor
Arbiter Pedro Ramos on March 24, 1983, stating that the
termination is w/o valid cause hence, reinstatement must be
made.
 On April 18, 1983, respondent appealed to National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) stating that the action of
petitioner has already prescribed.
 NLRC reversed the decision of MOLE alleging that Art. 291
and 292 of the Labor Code are the ones applicable to this
case:
a. Art. 291. Offenses.—Offenses penalized under this Code
and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto
shall prescribe in three [3] years.
b. Art, 292. Money claims.—All money claims arising from
employer-employee relations accruing during the
effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three [3]
years from the time the cause of action accrued;
otherwise, they shall be forever barred.
Hence, action of petitioner already prescribed.
a. That the Labor Code is silent on the prescriptive period
of an action for illegal dismissal with claims for
reinstatement, backwages and damages.
b. The applicable law, by way of supplement, is Art. 1146
of NCC which provides a 4 year prescriptive period for
an action predicated upon “an injury to the rights of the
plaintiff’ considering that an action for illegal dismissal
is neither a “penal offense” nor a mere “money claim,”
as contemplated under Art. 291 & 292 of LC.
c. That an action for illegal dismissal is a more serious
violation of the rights of an employee as it deprives him
of his means of livelihood; thus, it should have a
prescriptive period longer than the 3 years provided for
in “money claims.”
Issue:
a. WON the action of petitioner has already prescribed
b. WON the applicable law is Art. 1146 of the NCC or Art. 291
& 292 of the LC
Held:
a. NO.
1. SC pointed out that petitioner correctly cited Valencia
vs. Cebu Portland Cement, et.al, (a 1959 case) as an
applicable case insofar as it concerns the issue of
prescription of actions. In said case, SC held that an
action for damages involving a plaintiff separated from
his employment for alleged unjustifiable causes is one
for “injury to the rights of the plaintiff, and must be
brought within 4 years.
2. In Santos vs. CA, SC, thru C.J. Fernando, sustained the
stand of the Solicitor General that the period of
prescription mentioned under Art. 292 of LC refers to
and “is limited to money claims, all other cases of injury
to rights of a workingman being governed by NCC.”
 Hence, SC ruled that petitioner Marciana Santos
(petitioner in this case), who sought reinstatement, had 4
years to file her complaint for the injury to her rights as
provided under Art. 1146 NCC.
b. Art. 1146 is the applicable one
1. Even on the assumption that an action for illegal
dismissal falls under the category of “offenses” or
“money claims” under Art. 291 & 292 of LC, which
provide for a 3 year prescriptive period, still, a strict
application of said provisions will not destroy the
enforcement of fundamental rights of the employees. As
a statutory provision on limitations of actions, Art. 291
& 292 go to matters of remedy and not to the destruction
of fundamental rights.
c. With all that said, from June 1, 1979, the date of the illegal
dismissal up to July 5, 1982, date of petitioner’s filing of this
action.
Doctrine:
 Art. 1146 of NCC; Action for injury to one’s rights must be
brought within 4 years.
How did it end:
 NLRC’s decision reversed; Reinstatement was made to
petitioner to his former position w/o loss of seniority rights
and privileges, a supervening event
 Respondent was ordered to pay 3 years of backwages of
petitioner w/o qualification or deduction
Additional notes:
 There was an issue of laches against petitioner. But SC
stated that it cannot be said as laches because respondent
made threats to petitioner if he files an action for the illegal
dismissal made upon him. Respondent should’ve been guilty
of estafa because of this.