The feati employees union filed a petition with the

This preview shows page 343 - 346 out of 737 pages.

The FEATI employees union filed a petition with the (de- funct) Court of Industrial Relations praying that PAL be ordered to pay vacation and sick leave with pay from August 1, 1946, which had already accrued at the time they were laid-off on June 15, 1947. The employees claim that when PAL bought out FEATI, the former assumed all the obligations and rights of the latter. Issue: Is PAL legally liable for the payment of the money equivalent of the vacation and sick leave earned from FEATI? Held: No. As the obligation of FEATI is of considerable value, which in this case amounts to P100,000.00, and FEATI was bought out by PAL not to continue its business but to stop its operation in order to eliminate competition, as shown by the fact that all the employees of FEATI were laid-off, it cannot be said that PAL assumed the obligations of FEATI, its rival
344 SALES Art. 1583 airline. The final agreement of July 9, 1947 failed to make any mention whatsoever about the money equivalent of the vaca- tion and sick leave. This leave was earned by the employees from FEATI for services rendered from August 1, 1946 up to May 21, 1947 when they ceased to render said service to FEATI. For those employees who were absorbed by PAL from May 21, 1947 to June 15, 1947, when they were laid-off, they may be said to have earned the corresponding leave from PAL. Had the employees insisted on the payment of the leave already earned from FEATI in the execution of the agreement of July 9, 1947, FEATI could perhaps have been made to pay unless, of course, PAL agreed to assume the obligation. When they failed to raise the question or have it embodied in the agree- ment, said failure may be regarded as a waiver of their right. (Ibid.) ART. 1583. Unless otherwise agreed, the buyer of goods is not bound to accept delivery thereof by installments. Where there is a contract of sale of goods to be delivered by stated installments, which are to be sepa- rately paid for, and the seller makes defective deliver- ies in respect of one or more installments, or the buyer neglects or refuses without just cause to take deliv- ery of or pay for one or more installments, it depends in each case on the terms of the contract and the cir- cumstances of the case, whether the breach of con- tract is so material as to justify the injured party in refusing to proceed further and suing for damages for breach of the entire contract, or whether the breach is severable, giving rise to a claim for compensation but not a right to treat the whole contract as broken. (n) Rules governing delivery in installments. (1) General rule. — In an ordinary contract for the sale of goods, the buyer is not bound to receive delivery of the goods in installments. He is entitled to delivery of all the goods at the same time and, it may be added, is bound to receive delivery of all at
Art. 1583 OBLIGATIONS OF THE VENDEE 345 the same time. Similarly, a buyer has no right to pay the price in installments. Neither can he be required to make partial payments.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture