Philippine Labor Law Glossary
Prescription is the loss of the legal right to enforce a labor claim because the applicable filing period expired after the cause of action accrued.
There Is No Single Filing Period for Every Labor Claim
The correct prescriptive period depends on the nature of the claim. A worker should first identify the right allegedly violated, when the cause of action accrued and whether a law or recognized event interrupted the running of the period.
- Money claims arising from employment: generally must be filed within three years from accrual under Article 306 of the Labor Code, formerly Article 291.
- Illegal dismissal: generally prescribes in four years because it is treated as an action based on injury to rights under Article 1146 of the Civil Code.
- Backwages and damages arising from illegal dismissal: generally follow the four-year period applicable to the illegal-dismissal action.
- Other statutory, contractual or penal matters: may follow a different period under the governing law.
Because classification changes the deadline, an unpaid-wage claim should not automatically be treated the same as a claim questioning the legality of dismissal.
When the Period Begins
Prescription generally begins when the cause of action accrues—when the claimant has a legal right, the opposing party has a corresponding obligation and an act or omission violates that right. The accrual date is fact-specific. For unpaid wages, each unpaid amount may have its own accrual date. For illegal dismissal, the period ordinarily runs from the date employment was unjustly terminated.
Interruption and Tolling
Certain legally recognized acts may interrupt or affect prescription, such as filing the proper action or making an extrajudicial demand where the governing law recognizes it. A Request for Assistance under SEnA may also affect the computation under applicable rules. Parties should preserve filing confirmations, demand letters and conference records rather than assume that informal conversations stopped the clock.
Legal Basis
| Authority | Rule supported | Official source |
|---|---|---|
| Labor Code, Article 306 | Provides the general three-year period for money claims arising from employer-employee relations. | Department of Labor and Employment |
| Arriola v. Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. | Distinguishes the three-year period for unpaid salaries from the four-year period for illegal dismissal, backwages and related damages. | Supreme Court E-Library |
| Victory Liner, Inc. v. Race | Explains that the four-year illegal-dismissal period runs from the accrual of the worker’s cause of action. | Supreme Court E-Library |
Evidence That May Matter
| Evidence | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Termination notice or last day worked | May establish when an illegal-dismissal cause of action accrued. |
| Payslips, payroll records and due dates | Help identify when each money claim became demandable. |
| Written demands and employer responses | May show acknowledgment, dispute and possible interruption issues. |
| SEnA or case-filing confirmation | Establishes the date formal remedial action was initiated. |
| Settlement communications | May affect accrual or interruption depending on their legal effect. |
Practical Example
Hypothetical example: An employee was dismissed three years and six months ago and also claims unpaid salary from the final month of work. The illegal-dismissal complaint may still fall within the four-year period, while the separate unpaid-salary claim may already face the Labor Code’s three-year bar. The claims must be classified individually.
Common Misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: All labor cases may be filed within three years.
Correct approach: Three years generally applies to employment-related money claims, while illegal dismissal generally follows a four-year period.
Misunderstanding: An internal complaint automatically stops prescription.
Correct approach: The legal effect of an internal report, demand, RFA or formal complaint depends on the governing rule and the evidence of filing.
Sources and Legal Citations
- Labor Code of the Philippines, Article 306, official DOLE edition.
- Arriola v. Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc., G.R. No. 175689, August 13, 2014, Supreme Court E-Library.
- Victory Liner, Inc. v. Race, G.R. No. 164820, April 27, 2007, Supreme Court E-Library.
Editorial Review and Legal-Review Status
Prepared by: LaborCode.ph Editorial Team
Editorial review: Reviewed under the LaborCode.ph Content Review Policy
Source verification: Official legal sources checked on August 2, 2026
Research coverage: This entry is based on a comprehensive and exhaustive review of relevant Philippine labor-law sources.
Editorial approach: The material is presented as a written digest prepared by labor-law researchers and experts, offering selective but broad insights for general educational use.
Disclaimer
This glossary entry is for general educational and legal-information purposes and is not legal advice. Filing periods depend on claim classification, accrual, interruption and the governing law.