April 2016 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 195552, April 18, 2016 - ACS DEVELOPMENT & PROPERTY MANAGERS, INC., Petitioner, v. MONTAIRE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 195552, April 18, 2016
ACS DEVELOPMENT & PROPERTY MANAGERS, INC., Petitioner, v. MONTAIRE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
REYES, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari1 filed by ACS Development & Property Managers, Inc. (ADPROM) against Mont-Aire2 Realty and Development Corporation (MARDC) to assail the Decision3 dated March 28, 2000 and Resolution4 dated November 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 48805, which affirmed with modification the Decision5 dated August 17, 1998 of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) in CIAC Case No. 32-97.
ADPROM and MARDC were parties to a Construction Agreement6 executed on April 25, 1996, whereby ADPROM, as contractor, was to construct 17 units of MARDC's Villa Fresca Townhomes in Barangay Kaybagal, Tagaytay City. The total consideration for the contract was P39,500,000.00, inclusive of labor, materials, supervision and taxes. ADPROM was to be paid periodically based on monthly progress billings, less 10% retention.7 Angel Lazaro & Associates (ALA) was hired by MARDC as the project's construction manager.8
The parties later amended their Construction Agreement, reducing the number of units to be erected to 11 and the total contract price to P25,500,000.00. On May 2, 1996, ADPROM commenced with the construction of the townhouses.9
MARDC fully satisfied ADPROM'S Progress Billing Nos. 1 to 8 for a total amount of P23,169,183.43. In Progress Billing No. 9 for work performed in February 1997, ADPROM demanded from MARDC the amount of P1,495,345.24.10 ALA, however, approved the payment of only P94,460.28, as it disputed specific amounts in the billing, including cost additives.11 ADPROM refused to allow a reduction in its demanded amount. In a letter12 dated March 14, 1997, it even insisted on MARDC's acceptance of the accomplishments identified in Progress Billing No. 9 before it could proceed further with construction works. Beginning March 18, 1997, when Progress Billing No. 9 remained unpaid, ADPROM decided on a work stoppage.13
The stoppage prompted MARDC to serve upon ADPROM on March 20, 1997 a notice of default.14 After several meetings among the parties and ADPROM's issuance of consolidated Progress Billing Nos. 9 and 1015 intended to supersede the contested Progress Billing No. 9, ALA still advised MARDC to defer the payment of ADPROM's demand.16 ADPROM's consolidated billing of P1,778,682.06 was still greater than ALA's approved amount of P1,468,348.60.17
On June 5, 1997, MARDC decided to terminate the subject Construction Agreement.18 It demanded from ADPROM the return of alleged overpayments amounting to P11,188,539.69, after it determined from ALA that ADPROM's accomplished work constituted only 54.67%. An evaluation by another firm hired by MARDC, TCGI Engineers, also provided that ADPROM'S work accomplishment was only at 46.98%.19 Feeling aggrieved, ADPROM instituted with the CIAC a case for sum of money against MARDC, which in turn filed its own counterclaim against ADPROM.
On August 17, 1998, the CIAC rendered its Decision20 that concluded with the following awards:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
IX. SUMMARY OF AWARD
The Tribunal therefore makes the summary of award as follows:
A. FOR [ADPROM]