Case Digest (G.R. No. 187521)
Facts:
This is F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. v. HR Construction Corp., G.R. No. 187521, March 14, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. (FFCCI) was the main contractor under a DPWH contract for the Magsaysay Viaduct; respondent HR Construction Corporation (HRCC) was a subcontractor by a Subcontract Agreement (P31,293,532.72) for a portion called the East Bank Levee and Cut-Off Channel. The subcontract required monthly progress billings, payment within 30 days, and a joint measurement with DPWH, FFCCI, HRCC and consultants to arrive at agreed quantities.In 2004 HRCC submitted four progress billings totalling P6,107,919.63 for various coverage periods. FFCCI paid three separate sums (totaling P3,472,521.86) after its own verifications and deducted retentions and taxes; it withheld payment on certain billings contending joint measurement and DPWH approval were prerequisites. HRCC demanded payment, halted work after December 18, 2004, and filed for arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) on March 7, 2005, claiming unpaid billings (later reduced to P2,635,397.77), attorneys’ fees and costs.
The CIAC, after hearing, rendered a decision on September 6, 2005 awarding HRCC P2,239,452.63 as balance unpaid plus arbitration costs and interest, finding that FFCCI had effectively implemented an unauthorized back-to-back payment scheme, had waived the right to insist on joint quantification, and that HRCC’s work stoppage was justified. FFCCI filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a Decision dated February 6, 2009 and a Resolution dated April 13, 2009, denied the petition and affirmed the CIAC, agreeing that FFCCI waived the joint measurement condition and that HRCC’s stoppage amounted to a justified rescission.
FFCCI then brought this Rule 45 pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are the factual findings of the CIAC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, final and conclusive such that they are not reviewable by the Supreme Court except on questions of law?
- Does FFCCI’s failure to insist on the subcontract’s joint measurement requirement, and its subsequent payments based on its own verifications, amount to a waiver that bars FFCCI from disputing HRCC’s progress billings?
- Was HRCC’s work stoppage a valid extrajudicial rescission of the Subcontract Agreement, or was that right waived by contract terms...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)