G.R. No. 121484 - MEA BUILDERS, INC., VICENTE LLAVE, ERNESTO YU AND ANGEL YUANLIAN, VS. COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER FIFTEENTH DIVISION) AND METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, ordering the latter to pay the former: the sum of P18,200,000.00 representing the actual fair market value of construction work already performed by defendant MEA including the cost of filling materials advanced by it at the CRC Multinational Village minus the amount of P1.5 million covered by the promissory note dated November 7, 1983; the sum of P9,000,000.00 as actual and consequential damages suffered by defendant MEA up to April 1984; the sum equivalent to three percent (3%) per month on the sums due as above stated, starting May 1984 until the above-mentioned amounts are fully paid; the sum equivalent to 10% of all amounts found due to the defendants; dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. With costs. [19] On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court: x x x x x x x x x To us, the P18,200,000.00 assessment by the court a quo was an over-computation. x x x x x x x x x Also, the agreement between CRC and MEA Builders made mention of P39,256,880.00 as the total contract price; method of payment through cash (standby Letters of Credit from appellant bank); an HFC guarantee, but not a pre-condition to the contract; taxes; a system of retention; contractors work guarantee; completion of project; and final Certificate of Completion, the latter pre-supposing a Certificate of Completion stating that the project has been completed and accepted. This was amended on August 11, 1982, by increasing the contract price to P45,552,950.00. The horizontal project, on the other hand, was stipulated only between CRC and MEA Builders, and mentioned filling materials to be advanced by MEA Builders, but to be reimbursed by CRC through a Letter of Credit from METROBANK; a schedule of completion; a contract amount of P7,755,000.00; a schedule of payment; and acceptance and final payment through a Final Certificate of Completion, and thereafter issuance of Letters of Credit as payment. We also have before us the Progress Report with the corresponding amounts for the period ending January 18, 1983 (Exhs. 18 and 18-A), for P2,691,685.45; the Progress Report (Exh. 20), also dated January 18, 1983 for P6,384,184.00; and then finally, the Progress Report dated January 20, 1983 (Exh. 19), horizontal construction, for P6,889,560.30. Obviously, Exh. 20 is only a duplicate original of the Progress Report dated January 18, 1983. This means a total of 120 units were built for Lots 9, 10 and 4. Built were townhouses of two models, duplex and single detached units. Admittedly, a total of 45 single detached housing units were already paid (Exh. M) in the total amount of P3,274,263.82. Necessarily, the appellant bank should only be held answerable for an amount definitely less than P18,200,000.00, or the cost of the units being mentioned in Exh. 20, less P3,274,263.22, and still less the balance of the unpaid loan. We go to the P