G.R. No. 202430 - METRO BOTTLED WATER CORPORATION, VS. ANDRADA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC..DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered we hold that: A. Claimant's claims Unpaid work accomplishment - P4,607,523.40 Interest on the unpaid work Accomplishment - 6% per annum on P4,607,523.40 reckoned from November 24, 2000 date of receipt of the letter dated October 24, 2000 by Respondent and 12% per annum from the time the judgment becomes final and executory until the entire sum including interest is fully paid. B. Respondent's Counterclaims Cost to complete and correct the projects - none Liquidated damages - none All other claims and counterclaims are dismissed for lack of merit. The costs of arbitration shall be shared equally by the parties. Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered ordering Metro Bottled Water Corporation to pay Andrada Construction and Development Inc. the amount of P4,607,523.40 with interest at 6% per annum reckoned from November 24, 2000 date of receipt of the letter dated October 24, 2000 by Respondent and 12% per annum from the time this judgment becomes final and executory until the entire sum including interest is fully paid. SO ORDERED, April 11, 2002. [33] Metro Bottled Water filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review [34] assailing the Arbitral Award. In its March 21, 2012 Decision, [35] the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for lack of merit [36] and upheld the factual findings of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. [37] It agreed with the arbitral tribunal's evaluation that Metro Bottled Water confirmed the completed works, and thus, Andrada Construction was entitled to compensation. To deny the payment would be to permit unjust enrichment at Andrada Construction's expense. [38] The Court of Appeals found no error in the entitlement of legal interest since demand could be reasonably established from Andrada Construction's October 24, 2000 Letter, which stated that payment was being requested as a formal claim. [39] It held that it could not pass upon Metro Bottled Water's allegation that the claims were barred by laches since it was not among the issues for resolution in the parties' Terms of Reference. [40] Metro Bottled Water filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the Court of Appeals in its June 25, 2012 Resolution. [41] Hence, this Petition [42] was filed. Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the principle of unjust enrichment, considering that Article 1724 of the Civil Code [43] provides the requisites for the recovery of the costs of additional work. It contends that Article 1724 requires both the written authority of the owner allowing the changes and a written agreement by the parties as to the increase in costs, neither of which were present in this case. [44] Even the Construction Agreement, it asserts, requires a written order to the contractor signed by the owner, authorizing work changes or adjustments on the contract price or contract periodto which respondent did not comply. [45] Petitioner explains that there was no evidence t