EEI questions court rulings

EEI Corp., the publicly-listed construction unit of the Yuchengco Group’s House of Investments, is contesting two recent court decisions which the company feels have put them at a disadvantage, a top official disclosed.

EEI senior vice president and corporate secretary Ferdinand Villafuerte told market regulators that the company has taken legal steps on the two adverse decisions which directly and indirectly involved the company.

One of the cases was the petition for the review which the company filed with the Court of Appeals in connection with the adverse decision of an Arbitral Tribunal in the arbitration case between Metro Pacific Corp. and SAE-EEI Construction Corp. (SECC), a joint venture with SAE of France.

"Although the case is on appeal and EEI is not a party litigant in the same, the company finds it prudent to make this disclosure considering that it holds substantial equity in SECC," Villafuerte said.

The case involved various claims and counterclaims between the parties, with the tribunal awarding liquidated damages worth P107 million to MPC, after offsetting the amount due to SECC.

SECC completed the construction in November 2001 of the 52-storey Pacific Plaza Twin Towers in the Bonifacio Global City, a luxury condominium project in and is now one of the major revenue sources for the MPC group.

Another case was the recent decision of a labor arbiter against EEI and Bechtel International, "incredibly awarding various sums of money to all workers deployed to its Algeria project some six years ago," Villafuerte pointed out.

He said the case originally involved only 12 workers when it was filed in January 1998 but last August, an amended complaint was filed to include all the other workers in the project as complainant to give the semblance of a class suit.

"Most of the workers added were not even aware of the complaint, much less authorized the filing of the same," he added.

In their appeal, the EEI official said the company argued, among others, that the arbiter seriously erred in treating the case as a class suit, in not finding that the money claims had prescribed, and in awarding hardship pay, mobilization fees, project allowance, Christmas bonus, and escalation pay without any basis in law and/or employment contract.