Case Digest (G.R. No. 104879)
Facts:
Ernesto Deiparine, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, Cesario Carungay and Engr. Nicanor Trinidad, G.R. No. 96643, April 23, 1993, Supreme Court First Division, Cruz, J., writing for the Court.The spouses Cesario and Teresita Carungay (private respondents) contracted with Ernesto Deiparine, Jr. (petitioner) on August 13, 1982, for the construction of a three‑story dormitory in Cebu City for P 970,000.00, with Deiparine undertaking to build “in strict accordance to plans and specifications.” Engr. Nicanor Trinidad was designated as the Carungays’ representative with inspection and coordination powers. Construction commenced on September 1, 1982.
On November 6, 1982, Trinidad submitted a separate document titled General Conditions and Specifications prescribing, inter alia, a minimum compressive strength of 3,000 psi. During construction Trinidad and Carungay repeatedly complained that Deiparine was deviating from the plans and safety instructions and ordered that approval be obtained before pouring concrete; those orders were ignored. After continued complaints, the parties agreed to conduct tests. Cylinder tests were first taken (for which Deiparine initially paid), but Carungay insisted on the more reliable core tests to determine the actual strength of the completed structure.
Core testing by Geo‑Testing International on twenty‑four samples showed universal failure at 3,000 psi, only three passing at 2,500 psi, and widespread failure at 2,000 psi. On these findings the Carungays sued in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu seeking rescission of the construction contract and damages. Deiparine moved to dismiss, contending that jurisdiction lay exclusively with the administrative construction board created by Presidential Decree No. 1746 (P.D. 1746); the RTC denied the motion on April 12, 1984.
After trial, Judge Juanito A. Bernad ordered rescission, condemned Deiparine to forfeit his construction expenses (P 244,253.70), reimburse P 15,104.33 for core testing, demolish and remove the existing structures and restore the premises, and pay P 10,000.00 attorney’s fees plus costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in tot...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the regular courts retain jurisdiction over this private construction dispute notwithstanding P.D. No. 1746, or did the implementing construction board have exclusive adjudicatory power?
- Did the trial court correctly rescind the construction contract for breach, and was Article 1191 of the Civil Code the proper basis for rescission rat...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)