ONOFRE V. MONTERO, EDGARDO N. ESTRAÑERO,
For disregarding the said return-
RENING P. PADRE, GABRIEL A. MADERA, HERMINIO T.
TACLA, NELSON C. VILORIA, DEMETRIO Q. PAJARILLO,
ALFREDO R. AGANON, REYNALDO AVILA, ALBERT T.
RUIZ, NESTOR Y. YAGO, HARTY M. TUPASI, AGUSTIN
R. AVILA, JR. OR MARCOS R. AVILA, BONIFACIO B.
GAANO, JOSELITO D. CUENTA, JONAS P. ESTILONG,
DOMINADOR C. CANARIA, GENARO C. RONDARIS,
HERARDO M. DULAY, FRANKLIN A. RAVINA, JR., AND
RUBEN C. CABELLO, PETITIONERS, VS. TIMES
TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., AND SANTIAGO
RONDARIS, MENCORP TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC.,
VIRGINIA R. MENDOZA AND REYNALDO MENDOZA,
2015-03-16 G.R. No. 190828
FACTS: Respondent Times Transportation Co., Inc.,
(TTCI) is a company engaged in the business of land
transportation for passengers and goods serving the
Ilocos Region to Metro Manila route. TTCI employed
the herein 21 petitioners as bus drivers, conductors,
mechanics, welders, security guards and utility
personnel, namely: Onofre V. Montero (Montero),
Edgardo N. Estrañero (Estrañero), Rening P. Padre
(Padre), Gabriel A. Madera (Madera), Herminio T.
Tacla, Nelson C. Viloria, Demetrio Q. Pajarillo
(Pajarillo), Alfredo R. Aganon (Aganon), Reynaldo
Avila (Avila), Albert T. Ruiz, Nestor Y. Yago (Yago),
Harty M. Tupasi (Tupasi), Agustin R. Avila, Jr. (Avila,
Jr.), Bonifacio B. Gaano (Gaano), Joselito D. Cuenta
(Cuenta), Jonas P. Estilong (Estilong), Dominador C.
Canaria (Canaria), Genaro C. Rondaris (Genaro),
Herardo M. Dulay (Dulay), Franklin A. Ravina, Jr.
(Ravina), and Ruben C. Cabello (Cabello)
(PETITIONERS).
Employees of TTCI formed a union named as Times
Employees Union (TEU)..
The sale of 25 buses of TTCI, as well as the Certificates
of Public Convenience for the operation of the buses,
were likewise approved and subsequently transferred
to respondent Mencorp Transport Systems, Inc.,
several union members received notices that they
were being retrenched effective 30 days from
September 16, 1997.
TEU declared a strike against TTCI, but the latter
merely reiterated the earlier return-to-work order of
the Labor Secretary.
to-work order, Santiago issued two notices of
termination dated October 26, 1997 terminating
some 106 workers and a revised list dated November
24, 1997 increasing the number of dismissed
employees to 119, for participating in the illegal
strike.
On May 14, 1998, petitioners Estrañero, Pajarillo,
Padre, Avila, Avila, Jr., Tupasi, Cuenta, Dulay, Yago,
and Aganon filed several complaints against TTCI
and MENCORP before the NLRC. However, this case
was withdrawn on March 4, 1999 upon motion by
the TEU’s counsel which was given due course on
March 22, 1999.17
Four years later, several complaints for unfair labor
practice, illegal dismissal with money claims,
damages and attorney’s fees were filed against TTCI,
Santiago, MENCORP and its General Manager
Virginia Mendoza, including the latter’s husband
Reynaldo Mendoza (collectively called the
respondents), before the LA from June to July 2002.
TTCI asserted that the petitioners’ cause of action had
already been barred by prescription because the
complaints were filed only in June 2002 or after
almost five years from the date of their dismissal.
ISSUE: WON petitioners’ complaints for illegal
dismissal have already prescribed.
RULING:
In the case at bar, October 26, 1997 and
November 24, 1997 appear on record to be the dates
when the petitioners’ employment were terminated
by TTCI.
Article 1146 of the New Civil Code provides that an
action predicated upon an injury to the rights of the
plaintiff, must be brought within four years.
Prescriptive period continues even after the
withdrawal of the case as though no action has been
filed at all. (ART 1115 OF NCC).
Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation
vs. Panganiban
Supreme Court held that although the
commencement of an action stops the
running of the statute of prescription or
 limitations, its dismissal or voluntary
abandonment by plaintiff leaves the parties
in exactly the same position as though no
action had been commenced at all.

In the case at bar, filing of the complaint for illegal

dismissal before the LA interrupted the running of the
prescriptive period, its voluntary withdrawal left the
petitioners in exactly the same position as though no
complaint had been filed at all. The withdrawal of
their complaint effectively erased the tolling of the
reglementary period.

The running of the four-year prescriptive period not

having been interrupted by the filing of NLRC RAB-I-
01-1007, the petitioners’ cause of action had already
prescribed in four years after their cessation of
employment on October 26, 1997 and November 24,
1997.