Abe v. Foster Wheeler Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs-appellees, workers, were employed by defendants-appellants Foster Wheeler Corporation and Caltex (Phil.), Inc. for the Batangas Refinery Project. The workers filed cases seeking recovery of certain claims. Procedural History: Defendants-appellants filed separate motions for reconsideration of the decision previously rendered by the Court in G.R. No. L-14875. Plaintiffs-appellants in G.R. No. L-14923 also filed a motion for reconsideration. The Appeal: Defendants-appellants argued in their motions for reconsideration that the employment of the workers was for a definite period and that Republic Act No. 1052 should not be given retroactive effect. Plaintiffs-appellants raised issues that were already considered in the decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the employment of the workers was for a definite period. Whether Republic Act No. 1052 should be given retroactive effect.
Ruling
The motions for reconsideration filed by both defendants-appellants and plaintiffs-appellants were denied for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the employment, despite being for a project with a specific duration, was not for a definite period. The contract stipulated that the employment term was temporary, dependent upon the employer's determination of the needs of the particular phase of construction work. This provision meant that the duration was not necessarily coexistent with the project's completion, as the employer could determine at any stage whether the worker's services were still needed. Furthermore, the employer could assign the employee to another phase of the construction work even after the termination of a particular task, if the employer determined such need. The worker had no means to ascertain when their services would be deemed unnecessary by the employer, indicating an indefinite term rather than a fixed one. On Issue 2: The Court stated that the ground regarding the retroactivity of Republic Act No. 1052 was already fully discussed in the original decision. Therefore, this issue did not warrant further consideration or a different outcome, implying that the original decision's stance on the non-retroactivity of the law was maintained.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that in project-based employment, the duration of employment is not necessarily definite even if the project itself has a specific duration. The contract's stipulation that employment is temporary and dependent upon the employer's determination of needs, coupled with the employer's right to assign employees to other phases of work, means the employment period is not fixed. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Republic Act No. 1052, which governs termination of employment, should not be given retroactive effect.