Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. L-14785 and L-14923 February 27, 1961
FELIX ABE, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION and CALTEX (PHIL.), INC., defendants-appellants.
Nicetas Suanes for plaintiffs-appellees.
Ross, Selph & Carrascoso for defendants-appellants.
R E S O L U T I O N
BARRERA, J.:
In case G.R. No. L-14875 (Felix Abe, et al. v. Foster Wheeler Corp., et al.), defendants-appellants filed separate motions for reconsideration of the decision herein rendered, on the ground that (1) the employment of the workers involved in this case was for a definite period; and (2) Republic Act No. 1052 should not be given retroactive effect.
There is no question that the Batangas Refinery Project is for a specific duration, which is, until it is completed. Too, the different phases of the construction work, e.g., masonry painting, plumbing, etc., may also be considered with definite duration, which is, until they are finished. Still, under the terms of the contract entered into by the workers, the period or duration of their employment was indefinite. As far as pertinent, the contract provides: .
2. The refinery construction is a project of temporary duration and hence, your employment term shall also be temporary dependent upon the needs and requirements, as determined by this Company, of the particular phase of the connstruction work to which you may be presently or hereafter be assigned ....
Under the aforequoted provision of the contract, the worker's term of employment is made subject to two conditions: (1) upon the needs and requirements (not duration) of the particular work to which he (the worker) is assigned; and (2) that such needs and requirements are to be as so determined by the employer. In other words, the duration of the employment of a worker assigned to particular kind of work is not necessarily coexistent with the duration of such work, because the employer could, at any stage of the work, determine whether his services are needed or not. Likewise, the employer could, even after the termination of a particular work, assign the employee to another phase of the construction work, if the employer determines that the needs of the work so require. Clearly, the worker is without any means to know when his services would be considered by his employer still necessary or not.
As to the other ground relied upon in the motion, the same was already fully discussed in the decision.
Plaintiffs-appellants in case G.R. No. L-14923 (Abe, et al. v. Foster Wheeler Corp., et al.) also filed a motion for reconsideration raising issues which are already fully considered in the decision.
The motions filed in both cases are, therefore, denied for lack of merit.
Bengzon, Actg. C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., took no part.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
