Title
Baylen Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-76787
Decision Date
Dec 14, 1987
Baylen Corporation must pay damages to Jose Rizal College for abandoning a construction project, as upheld by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Building Contract.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-76787)

Facts:

  • Baylen Corporation, Reynaldo M. Reyes, Edna L. Reyes, and Emmanuel I. Astillero are the petitioners.
  • Respondents include the Hon. Court of Appeals (14th Division) and Jose Rizal College.
  • In August 1969, Jose Rizal College invited bids for a five-storey school building in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila.
  • Baylen Corporation won the bid of P1,196,000.00, agreeing to complete the project in 200 working days.
  • Baylen began work on September 16, 1969, before a formal contract was signed.
  • Unstable ground conditions were discovered, prompting the College to conduct sub-surface tests, increasing the contract price to P1,276,000.00.
  • Baylen posted a Surety Bond of P255,200.00 in November 1969.
  • Rising material costs due to peso devaluation affected the project.
  • The College's Supervising Architect deducted significant amounts from Baylen's billings, approving only P210,716.00 after four submissions.
  • Baylen ceased work in April 1970, leading to mutual civil suits filed on July 29, 1970.
  • An independent Commissioner assessed the project, reporting on June 1, 1973.
  • The trial court ruled in favor of the College, ordering Baylen to pay damages and fees.
  • Both parties appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision with modifications.
  • Baylen filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision with modifications.
  • The Court determined that damages were based on increased construction costs due to Baylen's abandonment...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court upheld the College's interpretation of the payment terms, stating payments should reflect the percentage of work completed.
  • The contract was a fixed-price, lump-sum agreement without an escalation clause, placing the risk of cost increases on Baylen.
  • The Commissioner’s report was deemed valid as both parties accepted it without objecti...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.