Photo from Unsplash | Jumpei Mokudai
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The prescriptive period to file a complaint for illegal dismissal is four years from the time the cause of action accrued.
An action for illegal dismissal or when one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or means of livelihood is essentially a complaint for “injury of rights”, which falls under Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. (Jimmy Gallego v. Wallem Maritime Service, Inc., G.R. No. 216440, February 19, 2020)
Under the Article 1146 of the Civil Code, an action upon injury to the rights of the plaintiff must be instituted within four (4) years. (Article 1146, Civil Code)
Illegal dismissal is a dismissal without just or authorized causes. It is a violation of the contractual relations between the employer and the employee. It is likewise a violation of the Labor Code and its implementing rules and regulations. (Florencio Nedira v. NJ World Corporation, G.R. No. 240005, December 06, 2022)
The Labor Code expressly upholds the constitutionally guaranteed right to security of tenure by ordaining that a regular employee may not be terminated from service except for just or authorized cause:
“Security of Tenure. — In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.” (Article 294, Labor Code)
In the case of Florencio Nedira v. NJ World Corporation (G.R. No. 240005, December 06, 2022), the Supreme Court explained:
“The civil procedure classification of causes of action into either personal or real may not be applied to a complaint for illegal dismissal because (1) an employment contract is one imbued with public interest, and (2) a complaint for illegal dismissal is not merely for redress of a private right but a command for the employer to make public reparation for his violation of the Labor Code.”
One’s employment, profession, trade or calling is a “property right” and the wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong. The right is considered to be properly within the protection of a constitutional guarantee of due process of law.
When one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or means of livelihood, the action instituted to contest the legality of one’s dismissal from employment constitutes, in essence, an action predicated “upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff” as contemplated under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, which must be brought within four years.
Consequently, by way of supplement, in cases of illegal dismissal, Article 1146 of the Civil Code is applicable. To wit:
“The following actions must be instituted within four years:
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;
(2) Upon a quasi-delict. xxx (Article 1146, Civil Code)
Thus, to summarize, the prescriptive period to file a complaint for illegal dismissal is four years from the time the cause of action accrued. An action for illegal dismissal or when one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or means of livelihood is essentially a complaint for “injury to rights,” which falls under Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. (Jimmy Gallego v. Wallem Maritime Service, Inc., G.R. No. 216440, February 19, 2020)
Question: It has been held that a complaint for illegal dismissal has a dual character. What does this mean?
Answer: A complaint for illegal dismissal has a dual character. It is an action predicated upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, the purportedly illegally dismissed employee, since one’s employment is a right and its violation is an injury. At the same time, the award arising from the finding of illegal dismissal – the payment of backwages – is not merely for redress of a private right, but a command for the employer to make public reparation for his or her violation of the Labor Code. (Florencio Nedira v. NJ World Corporation, G.R. No. 240005, December 06, 2022)
Related Article/s:
Acquittal of Employee in Criminal Case Does Not Negate Finding of Illegal Dismissal
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.