This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-04-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In upholding Rivera's claim, the CA relied on De Guzman v. Court of Appeals[25] where the Court ruled that based on Article 1155 of the Civil Code, the three-year prescriptive period for money claims in labor cases can be interrupted by a claim filed with the proper judicial or quasi-judicial forum, by an extrajudicial demand on the employer, or by the employer's acknowledgment of its debt or obligation. De Guzman cited the Manuel L. Quezon University ruling.[26] | |||||
|
2009-04-22 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In ruling on the prescription issue, the CA cited De Guzman v. Court of Appeals[46] where we ruled that based on Article 1155, the three-year prescriptive period can be interrupted by a claim filed at the proper judicial or quasi-judicial forum, an extra-judicial demand on the employer or the employer's acknowledgment of its debt or obligation. De Guzman, in turn, cited the case of Manuel L. Quezon University Association v. Manuel L. Quezon Educational Institution (MLQU)[47] which UNILAB argues to be a mere obiter dictum. Whether or not the MLQU decision controls is a non-issue as the above discussion of the applicable laws shows and as confirmed by the CA in De Guzman:[48] | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The applicable law in this case is Article 291 of the Labor Code which provides that "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." The term "money claims" covers all money claims arising from an employer-employee relation.[14] | |||||