Serrano, v. CA [ G.R. No.

139420, August 15, 2001]

Labels: Case Digests, Labor Law

FACTS: From 1974 to 1991, A Company, the local agent of foreign corporation B Company, deployed
petitioner Serrano as a seaman to Liberian, British and Danish ships. As petitioners was on board a ship
most of the time, respondent Maersk offered to send portions of petitioners salary to his family in the
Philippines by money order. Petitioner agreed and from 1977 to 1978, he instructed respondent Maersk
to send money orders to his family. Respondent Maersk also deducted various amounts from his salary
for Danish Social Security System (SSS), welfare contributions, ship clubs, and SSS medicate. Petitioner’s
family failed to received the money orders petitioners sent through respondent Maersk. Upon learning
this in 1978, petitioners demanded that respondent Maersk pay him the amounts the latter deducted
from his salary, which request were ignored. Whenever he returned to the Philippines, petitioners
follow up his money claims but he would be told to return after several weeks while respondent Maersk
would hire him again to board another one of their vessels for about a year.

Finally, in October 1993, petitioner wrote to respondent Maersk demanding immediate payment to him
of the total amount of the money orders deducted from his salary from 1977 to 1978. On November 11,
1993, B company replied to petitioner that they keep accounting documents only for a certain number
of years, thus data on his money claims from 1977 to 1978 were no longer declined petitioners demand
for payment. In April 1994, petitioners filed a complaint for collection of the total amount of the unsent
money orders and illegal salary deductions against the respondents Maersk in the Philippine Overseas
Employment Agency (POEA). The NLRC dismissed within three years from the time the cause of action
accrued, otherwise they shall be forever berried.

ISSUE: Did the money claim of petitioner prescribe?

HELD: No. Petitioner’s cause of action accrued only in 1993 when respondent A.P Moller wrote to him
that its accounting records showed it had no outstanding money orders and that his case was
considered outdated. Thus the three (3) years prescriptive period should be counted from 1993 and not
1978 and since his complaint was filed in 1994, he claims that it has not prescribed. It is settled
jurisprudence that a cause of action has three elements, to wit (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by
whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; 2) an obligation on the part of the
named defendant to respect or not to violate such right, and 3) an act or omission on the part of such
defendant volatile of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a branch of the obligation of the defendant
to the plaintiff. In October 1993, Serrano finally demanded in writing payment of the unsent money
orders. Then and only then was the claim categorically denied by respondent. AP. Moller in its letter
dated November 22, 1993. Following the Baliwag Transit ruling (1989), petitioner’s cause of action
accrued only upon respondent. AP. Mollers definite denial of his claim in November 1993. Having filed
his action five (5) months thereafter or in April 1994, we holds that it was filed within the three – year
(3) prescriptive period provided in Article 291 of the Labor Code.