Facts:

• The case of Dionisio v. Paterno involved a contract dispute between Virgilio V. Dionisio and the Ministry of Public Highways.
• The case was decided on February 26, 1981.
• The court granted the petitioner an adjustment amount of P1,955,060.99.
• The case highlighted the importance of giving what is due to those who contract with the government.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The adjustment should be based on the lump sum c...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The petitioner argued that the basis of the adjustment amount should be the P17,741,755.80, which was the price stipulated in the contract.
• On the other hand, the respondent claimed that the contract was a "unit price contract" and not a "lump sum contract".
• The court ruled in favor of the petitioner and held that the adjustment should be based on the lump sum contract price.
• The court noted that the adjustment previously paid to the petitioner corresponded almost exactly to 2.86% of the contract price, indicating that the Contract Price Adjustment Committee considered this as the proper adjustment ratio.
• The court criticized the Ministry of Public Highways for not obeying the presidential directive and the law, which both required the adjustment to be made based on the lump sum contract price.

Ruling (continued):

• The court determined that the petitioner should be given a total adjustment of P2,537,648.19.
• However, since the petitioner only demanded and prayed for P1,955,060.99, the court granted him this amount.
• The court denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration and fixed the adjustment amount at P1,955,060.99.

Conclusion:

• The controvers...continue reading