Case Digest (G.R. No. 182946)
Facts:
Alcatel Philippines, Inc. v. I.M. Bongar & Co., Inc. and Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 182946, October 05, 2011, Supreme Court Third Division, Abad, J., writing for the Court.Alcatel Philippines, Inc. (petitioner) contracted with Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) to perform civil works for a Fast Track Project in North Parañaque and subcontracted part of that work to I.M. Bongar & Co., Inc. (respondent Bongar) by a June 20, 1991 subcontract worth P12,047,407.00. Bongar received a 20% down payment. The subcontract required Bongar to furnish (1) a performance bond equivalent to 25% of the subcontract and (2) an advance payment bond; accordingly, Bongar and Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. (respondent SIC) executed surety and performance bonds on June 27, 1991.
The subcontract took effect July 29, 1991 with a 90-day completion period (due October 29, 1991). Inspections and homeowner complaints revealed delays and substandard work; Bongar failed to complete by October 29. On December 1, 1991 Bongar proposed a revised schedule to finish by May 31, 1992, and then ceased work entirely on April 20, 1992. Alcatel took over the unfinished works, cancelled the subcontract by letter dated June 1, 1992, demanded return of uninstalled materials and payment under the bonds, and on August 7, 1992 formally notified Bongar and SIC of their liabilities. When payment was refused, Alcatel sued Bongar and SIC before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 66 (Civil Case No. 93-2323).
On September 24, 2001 the RTC rendered judgment ordering Bongar and SIC, jointly and severally, to pay Alcatel the value of uninstalled materials (P919,471.10) and attorney’s fees and costs of P500,000.00, but denied Alcatel’s claims for P500,482.41 (alleged overpayment) and P1,098,208.02 (additional reprocurement/completion costs) for lack of proof. Alcatel appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On August 31, 2007 the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision except that it deleted the award of attorney’s fees and costs because, although the RTC’s dispositive portion granted such fees, the CA found no discussion or b...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in deleting the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees in favor of Alcatel?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying Alcatel’s claim for refund of alleged overpayment of P500,482.41?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying Alcatel’s claim for P1,098,208.02 in costs to comple...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)