G.R. No. 250296 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), VS. A.D. GONZALES, JR. CONSTRUCTION AND TRADING COMPANY, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, ordered the DPWH to pay the following: (a) PHP 5,364,086.35 comprising the unpaid accomplished work on the Abacan River Control Cut-Off Channel Project; (b) PHP 50,000.00 as attorney's fees; and (c) cost of suit. [15] In so ruling, the RTC held that there was a perfected contract between Gonzales Construction and DPWH when the latter informed the former of the award of the Abacan Project, as in fact, Gonzales Construction, represented by Gonzales, affixed his signature therein as conformity to DPWH's offer. The RTC opined that when the State enters into a contract through its officers or agents, in furtherance of a legitimate aim and purpose, the State may be sued even without its express consent. In this case, an implied consent to be sued was given by DPWH as party to the contract. [16] Further, the RTC found that DPWH is estopped in asserting non­ compliance with the requirements laid down in Presidential Decree No. 1445 considering that higher authorities had ordered the construction of the subject projects as an emergency measure even without the compliance with the necessary paperwork due to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. Moreover, the RTC found that a partial payment in the amount of PHP 1,968,206.10 was authorized and paid to Gonzales Construction for the Abacan project; thus, recognizing DPWH's valid obligation. [17] The RTC ruled that as a matter of fairness, Gonzales Construction is entitled to be compensated based on quantum meruit . From the evidence presented during trial, the RTC found that 90.61% of the Abacan Project was accomplished and the value of such completed works was equivalent to PHP 7,332,292.45. Considering that a partial payment of PHP 1,968,206.10 was previously made, the RTC held that a balance of PHP 5,364,086.35 is left unpaid. [18] About the Gumain Project, the RTC found no substantial evidence to prove Gonzales Construction's claim for the payment of PHP 2,695,980.00. Other than the contract agreement, resolution, and notice of award issued in its favor, there was no other evidence on record to substantiate its claim on the actual work it accomplished on the project. No payment is thus due to Gonzales Construction on this project. [19] As regards the defense of failure to exhaust all administrative remedies, the RTC explained that there are accepted exceptions in the application of the doctrine, among which are where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant and where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice. [20] Here, the RTC ruled that the instant case falls under those exceptions considering that despite repeated demands and the lapse of almost eight years from the time of completion of the subject projects and the filing of the instant case in court, Gonzales Construction is yet to receive its payment for the work it accomplished. Moreover, whether Gonzales Construction is entitl