G.R. No. 139420 - ROBERTO R. SERRANO, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MAERSK-FILIPINAS CREWING, INC. AND A.P. MOLLER.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , judgment is hereby made ordering the respondent and/or TICO Insurance Co., Inc. to refund to complainant his untransmitted money order payment of HK$4,600 and 1,050 Sterling Pounds. Respondent TICO Insurance Co., Inc.('s) cross-claim against respondent, for being meritorious, is hereby APPROVED . Other claims for lack of merit, are ordered DISMISSED . [6] Respondent Maersk appealed to the NLRC the Labor Arbiter's grant of the claim for the amount of unsent money orders. The NLRC reversed and set side Labor Arbiter Amansec's decision and dismissed the case on the ground of prescription, viz: The Appeal is impressed with merit. Primarily we find that the complainant's claim that the money orders he sent to his brother Arturo Serrano in the years 1977 to 1978 were not received by the latter and his claim against respondent to pay him the alleged amounts of HK$4,600 and 1,050 (Position Paper) or US$2,050.00 (Affidavit-complaint) has indeed prescribed. Under Article 251 (sic) of the Labor Code as amended and we quote: 'Article 291. Money claims. All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued, otherwise they shall be forever barred.' In the instant case, complainant's cause of action accrued in 1977 and 1978 but he filed a complaint only on April 20, 1994. Clearly, complainant has slept on his rights and allowed himself to be overtaken by prescription. On March 4, 1999, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision. It was denied for lack of merit. Petitioner sought recourse in the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed his petition for having been filed out of time. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the appellate court's resolution having been denied, he appealed to this Court with the lone assignment of error, viz: RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION ON MERE TECHNICALITIES RATHER THAN ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. The Labor Arbiter's dismissal of petitioners complaint for illegal salary deductions was not appealed and has thus become final. In his petition before this Court, petitioner takes issue only on the dismissal of his claim for the unsent money orders. We shall first deal with the issue on the period for filing a petition for review from a decision of the NLRC to the Court of Appeals. Applying the law then applicable, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for having been filed out of time, viz : . . . Pursuant to Section 4 of the Rule, as amended effective September 1, 1998, such a petition should be filed within sixty days, computed as follows: 'SEC. 4. Where and when petition to be filed . - The petition may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a c