G.R. No. 205737 - SYSTEMS ENERGIZER CORPORATION (SECOR), VS. BELLVILLE DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED (BDI).D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, we, Atty. Eduardo R. Ceniza, Engr. Salvador P. Castro, Jr., and Arch. Armando N. Alli, hereby decide and award in full and final disposition of this arbitration, as follows: (1) Respondent is ordered to pay Claimant the sums of (i) Php1,525,000.00, representing the 10% retention fee under the first contract, (ii) Php5,155,000.00, representing the 10% retention fee under the second contract, and (iii) Php1,350,000.00, representing the value of WAO No. 20 or a total of Php8,030,000.00, with legal interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum computed from date of finality of this Final Award until the principal amount is fully paid; (2) Claimant's claim for exemplary damages and attorney's fee[s] are hereby denied; (3) Respondent's claim for reimbursement of various items in the total amount of Php32,044,090.32 are hereby denied; (4) Respondent's claim for exemplary damages, [and] attorney['s] fees are hereby denied; (5) Each party shall bear its own attorney's fees; (6) The arbitration cost which includes the filing fee, administrative fee, arbitrator['s] fee, and Arbitration Development Fund charges, including all incidental expenses, shall be borne by both parties on a pro rata basis; (7) All other requests for relief not granted or disposed of here are hereby denied. [27] The CIAC made the following findings vis-à-vis petitioner's claim and respondent's counter-claim for a refund of its inadvertent payment for the full price under the First Contract: 1) The additional cost for the changes of the revised plan on the original plan amounting to P28,250,000.00 (reduced from P34,254,288.32 as initially stated in the Bill of Quantities [28] ) partly covered the scope of work of the First Agreement, and the Second Agreement did not contain any provision that specifically stipulates the abandonment of the First Agreement. 2) The issue of whether or not the Second Agreement superseded the First Agreement was not the real issue, since the case all boiled down to petitioner's proper compensation for actual services rendered and as billed to respondent. 3) There was no justification present for CIAC to undo the contractual terms entered into and agreed upon by the Parties, much less concerning their performance, since there was no showing of any fraud or vitiation of consent on the part of either petitioner or respondent. Moreover, the evaluation of the professionals hired by respondent to oversee the implementation of the Agreements ( i.e. , the project manager, the quantity surveyor, and its own accountant) do not show any irregularities in petitioner's accomplished works, and respondent was bound by their actions and evaluation. 4) Petitioner was entitled to the release of the retention fees under both contracts, since respondent did not raise any of its objections to the same in its reply to petitioner's demand letter, and only belatedly raised them before the CIAC. Aggrieved, respondent filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rul