GEORGE A. ARRIOLA, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (3RD DIVISION), PILIPINO STAR NGAYON, INC. AND/OR MIGUEL G. BELMONTE, RESPONDENTS.

Arriola versus Pilipino Star Ngayon

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by George Arriola against the National Labor Relations Commission, the Third Division, and against Pilipino Star Ngayon, Incorporated and its president, Miguel Belmonte. Arriola claims that he was illegally dismissed from his work as editor and columnist, and he asks the Supreme Court to reverse the labor tribunal that found he had abandoned his job and that his money claims had already prescribed. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on the narrow gate of certiorari in labor cases, on management prerogative over the content of a newspaper, on how abandonment is proved, and on how the three-year prescriptive period for money claims is counted.

Procedural History

Arriola filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary, and attorney's fees before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Arriola appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. Arriola moved for reconsideration, and the Commission denied the motion, warning that no further motions for reconsideration would be entertained. Arriola then came to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assigning as errors the findings that he was not dismissed, that he abandoned his work, and that his money claims had prescribed.

Facts

Arriola was employed by Pilipino Star Ngayon in July 1986 as a correspondent assigned to Olongapo City and the Zambales area. Over the years he rose through several positions, and his last was as editor and columnist of the newspaper's section called Tinig ng Pamilyang OFWs, with a monthly salary of 12,500 pesos plus a 2,000 peso allowance.

Arriola says that on 15 November 1999 he was illegally dismissed, after Miguel Belmonte told him that his column would be removed and that he would be given separation pay. The company tells a different story. It says that in the third week of November 1999 Arriola simply stopped reporting for work, never called, and did not answer messages sent through the beeper the company had issued him, nor through a former employee who was asked to relay the request that he return. The company later learned that he had taken up work with another publication, Imbestigador, where he wrote a column, and that his social security records showed a transfer to a new employer, Gear Promotions, Incorporated, sometime in March 2000.

Arriola filed his complaint only on 15 November 2002, three years after the date he says he was dismissed. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, the Commission affirmed, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Arriola was not dismissed but instead abandoned his job.
• Whether or not the Commission erred in holding that Arriola's money claims had already prescribed.
• Whether or not the petition raises questions of fact that are beyond the scope of a petition for certiorari.

Applicable Provisions

Article 291 of the Labor Code provides:

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.

This is the provision the Court applies to bar Arriola's claims for unpaid salary, separation pay, damages, and attorney's fees, because he filed his complaint exactly three years after the date he himself fixed as the day his cause of action arose.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no illegal dismissal. The removal of Arriola's column did not end his employment, because his job did not depend on the existence of that column. Choosing which sections appear in a newspaper is a management prerogative, exercised with an eye to what will sell and keep the business profitable, and the law protects that right even as it is solicitous of the welfare of employees. The Court also found circumstances inconsistent with a dismissal on 15 November 1999: Arriola himself claimed he was not paid for the whole of November, which implies he worked the whole month; and after the alleged dismissal date he was represented by the company's own counsel in a libel case and filed his counter-affidavit on 24 November 1999. No notice of dismissal was ever sent to him, and where an employee is not notified of dismissal and is not prevented from returning to work, there is no illegal dismissal to speak of.

Instead, the Court found abandonment. There must be concurrence of the intention to abandon and overt acts showing no more interest in working, meaning a clear, deliberate, and unjustified refusal to resume employment and a clear intention to sever the relationship. Arriola's unexplained absence, his silence despite the company's efforts to reach him, his employment with a competitor, and his transfer to another employer all manifested that intention.

On the second issue, the Court held that the money claims were barred. Arriola's cause of action accrued on 15 November 1999, and he filed on 15 November 2002. Counting the leap year 2000, the last day before prescription set in was 14 November 2002. The Court rejected his argument that the reckoning date was 1 December 1999, because the unsigned computation he relied on did not prove that his salaries were withheld only from that later date, and a computation of separation pay is not proof that a dismissal took place. The claim for damages and attorney's fees likewise failed for lack of factual and legal basis and because of laches.

On the third issue, the Court stressed that the errors assigned were questions of fact. The sole office of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not a review of the tribunal's evaluation of evidence, and findings of the Labor Arbiter affirmed by the Commission are binding unless patently and grossly erroneous. Grave abuse of discretion means capricious and whimsical exercise of jurisdiction, or power exercised arbitrarily or despotically. The Court nonetheless resolved the issues in the interest of substantial justice, and found no grave abuse of discretion.

Doctrine

First, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 reaches only errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion; it is not a vehicle for re-weighing evidence or substituting the factual findings of a labor tribunal that has affirmed the Labor Arbiter. Second, the removal of a column or a section of a newspaper is an exercise of management prerogative and does not amount to dismissal where the employee's job does not depend on that section. Third, abandonment requires the concurrence of the intention to abandon and overt acts of refusal to resume work; working for a competitor and transferring to another employer without notice are such acts. Fourth, under Article 291 of the Labor Code, money claims arising from employer-employee relations must be filed within three years from accrual, and the period is counted from the date the cause of action arose, not from a later date suggested by an unsigned computation.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was dismissed, and the decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission were affirmed in toto, so the company prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the removal of a column is management prerogative, not dismissal, and money claims prescribe in three years from accrual. Examiners use this case to test the limits of certiorari in labor cases, the elements of abandonment, and the counting of the three-year prescriptive period under Article 291 of the Labor Code.