G.R. No. 139885 - BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, VS. JESUS G. SANTAMARIA, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF J. SANTAMARIA & ASSOCIATES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, BSP is ordered to pay JGS its first billing in the amount of P450,604.96, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from February 23, 1996 until it is fully paid; and its second billing for the amount of P62,451.05 with interest also at the rate of 6% per annum from September 10, 1996 until it is fully paid. In view of the long delay in the construction of the Project, the prices quoted by JGS are no longer realistic. It would be unjust and inequitable for JGS to be required to complete the balance of the work which is estimated to be 66% in accordance with the unit rates made by JGS in his proposal. This Arbitrator would have no basis for determining the appropriate adjustment taking into consideration cost escalation. The parties are, therefore, directed to negotiate and determine the amount of cost escalation to be allowed JGS for work already performed and for performing the balance of 66% of the work. x x x In view of the finding that neither party acted in bad faith, no award for attorneys fees is made. Both parties are ordered to pay in equal share the cost of arbitration including the arbitrators fees. [10] The CIAC noted that the contract itself had allowed additional compensations on authorized extensions and that any delays in this case are solely attributable to BSP first, due to design revision and second, due to its delay in resolving the issues raised by CTGC, so that the project completion date had gone far beyond what the parties had contemplated. Hence, BSP should bear any resulting losses. Upon respondents request, CIAC amended the first paragraph of the award to read as follows: On the basis of the above findings, it is the conclusion of this Arbitrator that the claim of JGS is valid. Accordingly, BSP is ordered to pay JGS its first billing in the amount of P450,604.96, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from February 23, 1996 until it is fully paid; and its second billing for the amount of P62,451.05 with interest also at the rate of 6% per annum from September 10, 1996 until it is fully paid; and the amount of P108,610.52 for services rendered from April 10, 1996 to July 31, 1996 . [11] (Italics supplied) On March 11, 1998, BSP filed a Motion for Correction/ Reconsideration, which the CIAC denied in its Order [12] of March 16, 1998. BSP then filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, but the latter affirmed in toto the decision and amended award of the CIAC, to wit: FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the challenged decision dated February 9, 1998 and Amended Award dated February 20, 1998, both of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission in CIAC Case No. 37-97 AFFIRMED (sic) in toto . SO ORDERED.