Thursday, July 6, 2023

Case Digest: Ace-Agro Development Corp. vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119729

Ace-Agro Development Corp. vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 119729, January 21, 1997, 78 SCAD 146

Subject: Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

Ace-Agro had been cleaning soft drink bottles and repairing wooden shells for Cosmos within its company premises in San Fernando, Pampanga. On April 25, 1990, a fire broke out in the Cosmos plant. As a result, Ace-Agro’s work stopped.

On May 15, 1990, Ace-Agro requested Cosmos to resume its services, but they were advised that on account of the fire destroying nearly all the bottles and shells, Cosmos was terminating their contract. Ace-Agro requested Cosmos to reconsider its decision but upon receiving no reply, they informed the employees of the termination of their employment, which led the employees to file a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter against both Ace-Agro and Cosmos.

Ace-Agro sent another letter for reconsideration to Cosmos to which they replied that they could resume work but outside company premises. Ace-Agro refused the offer, claiming that to work outside would incur additional transportation costs.

Cosmos then advised Ace-Agro that they could resume work inside the company premises but then Ace-Agro unjustifiably refused because it wanted and extension of the contract to make up for the period of inactivity.

ISSUE

Whether or not the period during which work has been suspended justify an extension of the term of the contract because the suspension of work under contract has been brought about by force majeure.

RULING

No, the period during which work has been suspended cannot justify an extension of the term of the contract.

Under the law (Art 1193), obligations for whose fulfillment a day certain has been fixed, shall be demandable only when that day comes. Obligations with a resolutory period take effect at once but terminate upon arrival of the day certain. A day certain is understood to be that which must necessarily come, although it may not be known when. If the uncertainty consists in whether the day will come or not, the obligation is conditional, and it shall be regulated by the rules of Art 1192.

In this case, the suspension of work due to fire does not merit an automatic extension. The stipulation that in the event of a fortuitous event or force majeure the contract shall be deemed suspended during the said period does not mean that it stops the running of the period the contract has been agreed upon to run. The fact that the contract is subject to a resolutory period, which relieves the parties of their respective obligations, does not stop the running of the period of their contract.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Case Digest: General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC, G.R. No. 178647

  General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC,  G.R. No. 178647,  Februa...