February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. Nos. 147925-26 : February 06, 2012]
ELPIDIO S. UY, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF EDISON DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY
G.R. Nos. 147925-26 (Elpidio S. Uy, doing business under the name and style of Edison Development and Construction v. Public Estates Authority). - For appropriate action by this Court are: (a) petitioner Elpidio Uy's (Uy) Motion for Clarification,[1] Amended Motion for Clarification[2] and Supplement to Amended Motion for Clarification;[3] and (b) respondent Public Estates Authority's (PEA) Comment[4] to Uy's Motion for Clarification.
The Factual Antecedents
On May 16, 2000, the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) rendered a decision[5] in CIAC Case No. 02-2000, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the [petitioner] Contractor ELPIDIO S. UY and Award is hereby made on its (sic) monetary claims as follows:
Respondent PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY is directed to pay the [petitioner] the following amounts:
P19,604,132.06 �for the cost of idle time of equipment 2,275,721.00 �for the cost of idled manpower 6,050,165.05 �for the construction of the nursery shade net area 605,016.50 �for attorney's fees Interest on the amount of [P]6,050,l65.05 as cost for the construction of the nursery shade net area shal (sic) be paid at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the Complaint was filed on 12 January 2000. Interest on the total amount of [P]21,879,853.06 for the cost of idled manpower and equipment shall be paid at the same rate of 6% per annum from the date this Decision is promulgated. After finality of this Decision, interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall be paid on the total of these 3 awards amounting to [P] 27,930,018.11 until full payment of the awarded amount shall have been made, "this interim period being to be at that time already a forbearance of credit" (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 243 SCRA 78 [1994]; Keng Hua Paper Products Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 257 [1998]; Crismina Garments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128721, March 9, 1999).
SO ORDERED.[6]
Writs of execution relative to the above arbitral award were issued by the CIAC on September 19, 2000,[7] August 31, 2001[8] and April 10, 2002.[9] PEA paid Uy a total of P34,058,775.79.[10]
In its Joint Decision[11] rendered on September 25, 2000, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the award made by the CIAC. Both PEA and Uy Filed petitions before this Court to assail the CA's Joint Decision. PEA's Petition, docketed as G.R. Nos. 147933-34, and Uy's, docketed as G.R. Nos. 147925-26, were not consolidated. This Court dismissed PEA's petition sans prejudice to the result of Uy's petition.
On June 8, 2009, this Court rendered a Decision[12] partially granting Uy's petition. We affirmed with modifications the CA Joint Decision by increasing the award for cost of idle time of equipment from P19,604,132.06 to P55,680,492.38. We sustained the awards of P2,275,721.00 and P6,050,165.05 respectively corresponding to the costs of idled manpower and construction of the nursery shade net area. We likewise affirmed the permanent injunction issued by the CA relative to CIAC Case No. 03-2001. We, however, denied Uy�s claims for the costs of additional hauling distance of topsoil and mobilization of water trucks.
Uy filed a motion for initial reconsideration[13] to our June 8, 2009 Decision again seeking for the increase of the award for the cost of idle time of equipment from P55,680,492.38 to P71,009,557.90. He argued that in our computation, we did not consider the actual number of equipment deployed and on standby pending PEA�s delay in delivering work areas to him. He stressed that the Association of Carriers and Equipment Lessors (ACEL) factor rate used was only the total average, rate with undue regard to the number of equipment actually deployed. Uy also reiterated his prayers for the awards of P37,780,200.00, allegedly representing the cost to him of additional hauling distance of topsoil, and P19,652.000.00 as added expense for water trucks mobilization. He also sought for the lifting of the permanent injunction issued in CIAC Case No. 03- 2001.
On July 7, 2010, this Court issued a Resolution[14] sustaining Uy's argument relative to the propriety of including in the computation the number of equipment actually mobilized. However, from our examination of the annexes to Uy's partial motion for reconsideration, we observed that some mobilized equipment were under repair. Hence, we denied Uy's claim for P71,009,557.95 and instead remanded the records to the CIAC for a recomputation of the cost of idle time of equipment considering the number actually deployed and which were not under repair. Uy's claims for costs for additional hauling distance of topsoil and water trucks mobilization, and for the lifting of the permanent injunction were again denied.
The CIAC conducted hearings and required the parties to submit their memoranda in support of their respective positions.
On September 20, 2010, the CIAC issued an Order[15] holding Uy's entitlement to P62,828,515.00 as cost of idle time of equipment.
On September 30, 2010 PEA filed before the CIAC a motion for recomputation seeking the deduction from the recomputed sum of P62,828,515.00 the amount of P19,604,132.06, which PEA already paid to Uy in compliance with a writ of execution previously issued by the CIAC on August 31, 2001.[16]
Uy opposed PEA�s motion for recomputation arguing that the amount of P19,604,132.06 which the latter paid corresponded to the damage he incurred as a result of the reduction of the work areas, whereas the recomputed sum of P62,828,515.00 is intended to answer for the cost of idle time of equipment consequent to the delay in the turn over of the work areas.[17]
On October 14, 2010, the CIAC issued an Order[18] motion for recomputation on grounds:
Re-examining the Award made by this Tribunal, there is nothing therein that would support Claimant's [Uy] view and reasoning that would differentiate the source of delay and would confine the award made by this Tribunal only to the reduction of Work-Area. What the Tribunal awarded was "for the cost of idled equipment" in the amount of [P]19,604,132.06 whatever caused the equipment to be idle, whether by reduction of work area or delay in turn-over of work area[.]
The Tribunal is convinced that the amount paid by the Respondent [PEA] should be deducted, as Respondent has done, from the increased amount due as recomputed by the Tribunal, thereby making the net amount of [P]43,224,382.94 payable to the Claimant. For the Claimant to pray that the increased amount of [P]62,967,021.00 determined by this Tribunal be considered as "ADDITIONAL AWARD FOR THE DELAY IN THE TURN-OVER OF WORK AREAS" is hairsplitting and would work against the Tribunal's concept of justice.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Recomputation filed by Respondent is hereby GRANTED. The Award made by this Tribunal, as affected by the recomputation is as follows:
Net amount due for cost of idle equipment - [P]43,224,382.94Cost of idle manpower - 2,275,721.00Construction of nursery shade net area - 6,050,165.05 -------------------� Total award [P]51,550,268.99At 6% interest per annum on said amount from the filing of the complaint on 12 January 2000 up to 18 October 2010, interest is computed at [P]33,319,230.69. Fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt when this Order becomes final, interest on said amount of [P]51,550,268.99 shall be computed at 12% per annum until fully paid.
As per Decision of the Supreme Court, attorney's fees computed at 10% of the amount awarded, [P]5,155,026.89, is further awarded.[19] (citations omitted)
Uy's Claims in His Motion for Clarification, Amended Motion for Clarification and Supplement to Amended Motion for Clarification. |
This Court's Disquisition
Uy's claims fail to persuade.
When this Court issued its July 7, 2010 Resolution, it categorically denied Uy's claim for the amount of P70,871,051.49 as cost of idle time of equipment. Hence, we ordered the remand of the records of the case for the CIAC to compute the award on the basis of a revised formula.
We agree with the CIAC�s computation, which was explained in detail in its September 20, 2010 order,[20] viz.:
In compliance with the Order of the Tribunal, the parties submitted their respective computations of idled equipment cost. The following columnar table is the comparative computations submitted by the parties:
� �
Equipment No. EDC PEA1. Road Grader 2/2 P3,339,499 P3,339,4992. Pay Loader 2/3 9,721,402 14,582,1033. Tractor 0 0 04. Backhoe 3/2 13,704,600 9,136,4005. Roto Tiller 0 0 06. Concrete Mixer 4/7 847,392 1,482,9367. Roller 1/1 5,221,853 5,221,8538. Bulldozer 1/0 15,238,841 09. Dump Trucks 10/10 18,383,638 18,383,63810. Concrete Cutter 1/0 126,436 011. Plate Compactor 2/2 494,130 494,13012. Jack Hammer 2/1 327,709 163,85413. Generator 1/1 665,756 665,75614. Drill/Holesaw 4/1 181,490 45,37215. Welding Machine 2/1 306,379 153,18916. Bar Cutter 2/1 72,800 36[,]40017. Delivery Trucks 3/3 3,087,320 3,087,335
TOTALS: EDC [P]71,719,245.00 PEA [P]56,792,465.00Note: Under the column entitled No. or number of units of equipment, the number before the slash-sign represents that of the Claimant's and the number after the slash-sign represents that of the Respondent's.
The computation, Annex "A" of Claimant's submission of August 24, 2010 (COMPLIANCE with Manifestation and Motion) listed all the 17 units of equipment delivered on site as of December 6, 1996 obviously not deleting any item that may have be[en] under repair or on operational as what the Supreme Court wants to be determined.
What Claimant did was simply to multiply the listed 17 units of equipment by the corresponding rental rates per month. The total resulting amount of [P]3,940,597.00 was just multiplied by 18.2 months to arrive at the amount of [P]71,009,557.95 as due the Claimant.
Some insightful understanding arises from an analysis of the foregoing comparison of the parties' respective computations.
Item 2 on payloader: while Claimant lays claim to only two (2) units for a cost of [P]9,721,402, [r]espondent credits it with three (3) units for a higher cost of [P]14,582,103.90.
Item 6 on concrete mixer: while Claimant lays claim to only four (4) units for a cost of [P]847,392, [r]espondent credits it with seven (7) units for a higher cost of [P]1,482,936.00.
The total of these two items is [P]16,065,039.30 ([P]1,482,936.00 + [P]14,582,103.30) resulting in an increase of [P]5,496,245.30 from the claim of [P]10,568,794.00. (9,721,402 + 847,392).
Item 1 on road grader; item 3 on tractor; item 5 on roto tiller[;] item 7 on road roller; item 9 on dump trucks; item 11 on plate compactor; item 13 on generator; and item 17 on delivery trucks. In all of these eight (8) items, the number of units, or lack of it, and the cost calculation made by both the Claimant and the Respondent coincide with each other.
The eight items of coincidence and the two items in which Respondent credited Claimant with more units together with the corresponding cost than the claims of the Claimant, clearly shows (sic) Respondent's more balanced calculations than the one-sided calculations made by the Claimant and, therefore, more deserving of credit.
The divergences between the two calculations as to the seven (7) other items rest on (1) the number of equipment units � Claimant claiming more units than Respondent's calculations � and (2) the increased cost of idled equipment. Thus, for item 4 on backhoe, Claimant claims 3 units while Respondent admits to only 2 units; item 10 on concrete cutter where Claimant claims 1 unit but is denied by Respondent; item 12 on jackhammer where Claimant claims 2 units vs. Respondent's 1 unit; item 14 on Drill/Holesaw where Claimant asserts 4 units v. 1; item 15 on Welding Machine � 2 v. 1; item 16 on Bar Cutter, 2 v. 1.
The biggest divergence is on item 8 on bulldozer which Claimant asserts for 1 unit but Respondent denies, (0), resulting in [P] 15,238,841.00. difference between the claim for that amount and the denial thereof by Respondent. This requires elaboration. Claimant's calculation in Annex A to its COMPLIANCE dated 24 August 2010 included the Komatsu D-155A with [P]837,277.00 as monthly rental rate. Respondent assert[s] that said bulldozer was not on site.
Respondent, on its part submitted a TABULATION OF THE LIST Of REQUIPMENT (sic) (based on the Certification dated December 6, 1996 vis-a-vis the monthly progress reports) of the same 17 units of equipment which excluded what it claimed as non-operational. In support of the Tabulation were monthly progress reports of the Resident Works Engineer listing the units of equipment at the site from February 1997 (Annex 3-C) to March 1998 (Annex3-B), except for the months of March and September 1997.
Although it is noted that these Tabulation and supporting monthly reports were not among the records of this case and should not be considered, as argued by the Claimant, it has been earlier held by this Tribunal that this would unduly constrict the power of this Tribunal to do what the Supreme Court has directed it to do.
It is noted that the list of equipment cited by the Supreme Court includes 1 bulldozer as of December 1996 when Claimant Uy mobilized his equipment. Although the delay is from February 1997, there is no evidence submitted by Respondent to show that said bulldozer was pulled out of site. The presumption that it was on site must prevail without such contravening evidence.
Among the evidence submitted is Annex 8-D of Respondent's Project Manager's Affidavit, Jaime R. Millan wherein the following appears at the bottom of the document:
"EDC also has on site a Caterpillar D-5. It is our belief that the D-5 was used for landscaping works since the Komatsu D-155A-3 is too large for the job."
The rental for the smaller bulldozer is [P]615,807.00, not [P] 837,277.00 which is for the larger one. Thus, the Claimant is credited For the rental of the smaller bulldozer for the period of delay, for a total award of [P]11,207,687.00.
Although the Tribunal had noted the generosity of the Respondent in allowing more units and the corresponding costs than what Claimant had asked for, the Tribunal cannot be as generous. It can only grant relief in the amount being claimed. This refers to the items related to pay loader and concrete mixer. Thus, in calculating this matter, the claim for idle time for these two equipment will be used, not the generous amount calculated by Respondent.
As the record shows that the backhoe, the number on site is only 2. The claim, however, is for 3. Thus, only two (2) is allowed for [P] 9,136,400.00. The reduced amount results in a difference of [P] 4,568,200.00 which must be deducted from Claimant's claims.
Further, the record shows that only one (1) welding machine was on site but Claimant claims 2. Thus, only 1 is allowed for [P] 153,189.00. The reduced amount results in a difference of one-half of that claimed. Said amount must, therefore, be deducted from Claimant's claims.
The sum of all the foregoing changes is that this Arbitral Tribunal finds that Claimant is entitled for cost of idled equipment in the total amount of [P]62,967,021.00. To be deducted from this amount is the item of equipment which under Claimant's Exhibit C-1, was under repair for a period of seven (7) days, as follows:
Backhoe [P] 58[,]566.69Concrete Mixer 5,432.00Dump Truck 70,706.37Jack Hammer 4,201.40 ___________ TOTAL [P]138,506.46It is accordingly the HOLDING of this Arbitral Tribunal that Claimant is entitled to be paid the net amount of [P]62,828,515.00 as the cost of idled equipment.[21] (citations omitted)
This Court is also in accord with the CIAC�s holding to deduct the amount of P19,604,132.06 from the award of P62,828,515.00 corresponding to the cost of idle time of equipment. PEA paid Uy the arbitral award pursuant to the CIAC�s May 16, 2000 decision and the payment already included the amount of P19,604,132 as cost of idle time of equipment. This Court agrees with the CIAC�s explanation in the latter�s October 14, 2010 Order[22] that the sum should cover the cost of idle time of equipment both by reason of the reduction of work area and the delay in the turn over of work area. To do otherwise would be tantamount to allowing undue hairsplitting distinctions. Besides, the CIAC, which had evaluated the evidence before it, had the best opportunity to assess the correct computation of the cost of idle time of equipment. We now find no sufficient reason to overturn CIAC�s findings.
Further, Uy accepted PEA�s payments made on October 12, 2010, October 15, 2010 and November 10, 2010. The Total amount already tendered was P76,302,361.14 corresponding to the net amount due as cost of idle time of equipment and interests.
We also find no merit in Uy's repeated prayer for the lifting of the injunction issued relative to CIAC Case No. 03-2001. In our June 8, 2009 Decision, we emphasized that there is only a single cause of action running through CIAC Case Nos. 03-2001 and 02-2000, to wit, Uy's claimed rights under the Landscaping and Construction Agreement. We previously denied Uy's Motion for Reconsideration on the matter and we are surprised that Uy prays for a contrary outcome in his repetitive motions for clarification. Clearly, Uy's plea for the lifting of the injunction in CIAC Case No. 03-2001 is nothing less but a second motion for reconsideration, which Section 2,[23] Rule 52 of the Rules of Court prohibits.cralaw
WHEREFORE, Uy's motion for clarification, amended motion for clarification and supplement to amended motion for clarification are DENIED. The CIAC's October 14, 2010 Order is AFFIRMED. The permanent injunction issued relative to CIAC Case No. 03-2001 STANDS. Let no further pleadings be entertained. [Carpio, J., recused himself from the case due to close relation to a counsel representing one of the parties; Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated additional member per raffle dated December 15, 2010.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 1199-1208.[2] Id. at 1265-1275.
[3] Id. at 1449-1463.
[4] Id. at 1377-1389.
[5] Id. at 263-318.
[6] Id. at 317-318.
[7] Id. at 1065-1066.
[8] Id. at 1067-1068.
[9] Id. at 1069-1070.
[10] id. al 1046-1084, 1061.
[11] Id. at 101-117.
[12] Id. at 974-996.
[13] Id. at 997-1024.
[14] Id. at 1151-1158.
[15] Id. at 1249-1256.
[16] Id. at 1257-1258.
[17] Id. at 1258.
[18] Id. at 1257-1260.
[19] Id. at 1258-1259.
[20] Id. at 1249-1256.
[21] Id. at 1251-1256.
[22] Supra note 18.
[23] Sec. 2. Second motion for reconsideration. No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.