Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, an award is hereby rendered ordering the respondent to pay the Claimant the amount of P1,978,746.90 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 7 July 2000 up to the date of this Award. Thereafter, the Award shall earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum until fully paid.
accordingly supersedes the price stipulated x x x and any other commitment or agreement on price pertaining to works covered herein and no further adjustment in price shall be effected. It should be pointed out that on 23 November 1999, respondent had already approved Billing No. 3 (on September 25, 1998) and Billing No. 4 (on May 31, 1999) and asserted the deductions of the accommodations. Moreover, all the claim for accommodations were already in existence on 23 November 1999. x x x. x x x x WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, an award is hereby rendered ordering the respondent to pay the Claimant the amount of P1,978,746.90 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 7 July 2000 up to the date of this Award. Thereafter, the Award shall earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum until fully paid. [3] Aggrieved, PNCC sought recourse through a Petition for Review filed before the Court of Appeals maintaining that there is no basis in fact nor in law for the findings of the Sole Arbitrator that the deductions for accommodations for Billing Nos. 3, 4, and 5 should be disallowed as they already formed part of the compromise agreement and that the said accommodations were not properly documented and proved to bind CMS. On 26 August 2002, the appellate court rendered a Decision affirming the findings of Sole Arbitrator Lazatin. According to the Court of Appeals: It must be recalled that the parties initially agreed to a subcontract price of P7,990,172.61 (par. 3.1 Subcontract Agreement, Exh. R-3, p. 80, rollo); however, the same was increased to P8,872,593.74 (par. 9.1. Terms of Reference, p. 58, rollo; Final Bill of Quantities, p. 65, rollo) subject to petitioner PNCCs outright deduction of 10% net which would answer for any and all defect/s and/or deficiency/ies in the workmanship. And all the accumulated retentions shall be released within thirty days from the date of final acceptance of subcontracted work and which could be attained only after the lapse of the warranty period stipulated. (pars. 4.4 & 4.5., Subcontract Agreement, p. 81, rollo; Contract Amendment, Exh. R-15, p. 98, rollo). Thus, 10% of the subcontract price of P8,872,593.74 is P887,259.37, which should be automatically deducted, it being part of the Subcontract Agreement which to Our mind should be respected, since the same was not part of the amendment of the contract. When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. (Sec. 9, par. 1, Rule 130 Rules on Evidence) And there being no evidence on record which showed that petitioner PNCC claimed for any defects on the completed project against respondent CMS after April 1999, the aforementioned amount of P887,259.37 should now be released/paid to the latter. Coming now to the resolutions of whether or not t
G.R. No. 168074 - EMPIRE EAST LAND HOLDINGS, INC., VS. CAPITOL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION GROUPS, INC..DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 168074 -
CaseG.R. No. 205737 - SYSTEMS ENERGIZER CORPORATION (SECOR), VS. BELLVILLE DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED (BDI).D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 205737 -
CaseG.R. Nos. 243477-78 - ASEC DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, VS. TOYOTA ALABANG, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. Nos. 243477-78 -