Case Digest (G.R. No. 165679)
Facts:
Engr. Apolinario Duenas v. Alice Guce-Africa, G.R. No. 165679, September 13, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.In January 1998 Alice Guce-Africa (respondent) entered into a written Construction Contract with Engr. Apolinario Duenas (petitioner) for demolition of the ancestral house and construction of a new four‑bedroom residence for the agreed price of P500,000, with an express undertaking by Duenas to finish all interior portions on or before March 31, 1998. Africa alleged she paid a total of P550,000 (P50,000 over the contract price) for additional work. The house was needed for her sister’s wedding on April 18, 1998; on that date the house remained unfinished and the wedding was moved to a club.
Africa filed a Complaint for breach of contract and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 157, docketed Civil Case No. 66930, on July 27, 1998. She alleged, among other things, that Duenas began work without securing permits, abandoned the project leaving it substantially incomplete, produced substandard workmanship, and failed to finish by the agreed date despite payment and knowledge of the wedding. Duenas answered and counterclaimed, asserting that Africa undertook to secure government permits (though at trial he testified the parties agreed he would secure permits only if required), that delays were due to heavy rains, Holy Week and fiestas, and that Africa ordered him to stop work on May 27, 1998; he also claimed the alleged P50,000 overpayment covered extra work requested and that the extra work actually cost more.
After pretrial on February 19, 1999, trial proceeded. Africa and her witnesses testified; her brother Romeo recounted a confession by Duenas that he could no longer pay workers and had sought additional funds. Licensure/inspection evidence came from Romeo Dela Cruz, a licensed realtor and engineering graduate, who inspected the site in November 1998 and estimated only about 60% completion and opined repairs would cost roughly P100,000 and completion P200,000. Duenas testified in his defense.
On December 21, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment for Africa, finding Duenas failed to deliver in accordance with the contract, unjustifiably delayed, negligently abandoned the project, and produced poor workmanship; the RTC awarded P100,000 for necessary repairs, P200,000 for completion, P50,000 attorney’s fees, and costs, but denied moral, nominal and exemplary damages. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CV No. 70757.
On April 29, 2004, the CA affirmed the RTC with modification deleting the award of attorney’s fees. Duenas then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 bef...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- In a petition under Rule 45, may the Supreme Court review and re‑weigh the factual findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals regarding breach, abandonment and negligence?
- Were the awards of P100,000 (repairs) and P200,000 (completion) supported by competent evidence such that they may stand as actual damages?
- Was petitioner liable for damages caused by rainwater and the expo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)