SO ORDERED."2[2] Singapore Airlines timely appealed before the respondent court and raised the issues of jurisdiction, validity of termination, estoppel, and damages. On October 29, 1993, the appellate court set aside the decision of the trial court, thus, "...In the instant case, the action for damages due to illegal termination was filed by plaintiff-appellee only on January 8, 1987 or more than four (4) years after the effectivity date of his dismissal on November 1, 1982. Clearly, plaintiff-appellee's action has already prescribed. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint is hereby dismissed. SO ORDERED."3[3] Newmiso Petitioner's and Singapore Airlines' respective motions for reconsideration were denied. Now, before the Court, petitioner poses the following queries: 1. IS THE PRESENT ACTION ONE BASED ON CONTRACT WHICH PRESCRIBES IN TEN YEARS UNDER ARTICLE 1144 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE OR ONE FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM AN INJURY TO THE RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF WHICH PRESCRIBES IN FOUR YEARS UNDER ARTICLE 1146 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE? 2. CAN AN EMPLOYEE WITH A FIXED PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT BE RETRENCHED BY HIS EMPLOYER? 3. CAN THERE BE VALID RETRENCHMENT IF AN EMPLOYER MERELY FAILS TO REALIZE THE EXPECTED PROFITS EVEN IF IT WERE NOT, IN FACT, INCURRING LOSSES? At the outset, we find it necessary to state our concurrence on the assumption of jurisdiction by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9. The trial court rightly ruled on the application of Philippine law, thus: Acctmis "Neither can the Court determine whether the termination of the plaintiff is legal under the Singapore Laws because of the defendant's failure to show which specific laws of Singapore Laws apply to this case. As 2[2] Id. at 65. 3[3] Id. at 40.