Case Digest (G.R. No. 174387)
Facts:
BF Corporation v. Werdenberg International Corporation, G.R. No. 174387, December 09, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court.BF Corporation (petitioner) contracted with Werdenberg International Corporation (respondent) to construct a three‑story building for Php 43,800,000.00, with a completion date of April 7, 1995. Petitioner completed and purportedly turned over the building on August 15, 1995; respondent refused final acceptance alleging numerous defects and paid only Php 38,088,445.00. Petitioner sued in the Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the unpaid balance (Php 4,771,221.59), Php 141,944.93 for change orders/extra works, and sought a declaration that respondent’s claim for liquidated damages (Php 3,066,000.00 for 70 days) was baseless.
In its complaint and at trial, petitioner attributed the delays to unforeseen underground concrete slabs and extra soft soil requiring extensive remedial work, a city “stop work order” for lack of a building permit (which respondent had to help initiate by securing an ECC), revisions to the building plan, and numerous change orders requested by respondent. Respondent countered that petitioner inspected the site, was responsible for permits, suffered breakdowns of equipment and poor workmanship, and that most changes were linear activities not affecting the schedule; respondent computed only a 60‑day extension and held petitioner liable for 70 days of delay (hence the Php 3,066,000.00).
The RTC, after trial, found for petitioner: it accepted petitioner’s grounds for delay, granted petitioner a 130‑day extension for change orders (and more for other causes), and ordered respondent to pay the unpaid balance and other claims (decision rendered by Judge Santiago G. Estrella). On appeal, the Court of Appeals (Former Seventh Division) modified the RTC decision: it imposed liquidated damages of Php 3,066,000.00 (70 days) against petitioner, but on respondent’s motion for reconsideration the CA further awarded respondent Php 1,050,000.00 for repainting expenses and allowed a 10% retention fee, resulting in a reduced amount due petitioner.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the CA’s August 23, 2006 Resolution (and reinstatement of the RTC decision). The Supreme Court considered the conflicting fact...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court in a Rule 45 petition re‑examine factual findings where the RTC and the Court of Appeals reach conflicting conclusions?
- Did petitioner prove entitlement to extensions of time that would negate respondent’s claim for liquidated damages, and if not, how many days of delay (if any) render petitioner liable?
- Is respondent entitled to reimbursement for repainting expenses and to retain 10% of the contract price as retention money?
- What is the proper final monetary computation (including interest) after adjustment for liq...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)