Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9305)
Facts:
George Edward Koster Inc. v. Jose C. Zulueta, G.R. No. L-9305. September 25, 1956, the Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff and appellee George Edward Koster Inc. contracted on June 29, 1948 to construct for defendant and appellant Jose C. Zulueta the four-story reinforced-concrete Antonio (Zulueta) Apartments in Manila for a contract price of P286,755. The plans and specifications were prepared by Manalac Construction Co., acting as Zulueta’s architects. The owner agreed to furnish certain materials (reinforcing steel, cement, steel windows, plumbing fixtures). The contract provided for 215 days for completion, with automatic extensions for delays due to late deliveries or fortuitous causes; Article 7 detailed the procedures for final inspection, the architect’s final certificate, the contractor’s obligation to repair hidden defects within six months after final acceptance, and conditions under which final payment could nevertheless be made despite absence of public final certificates.
Although the original contract price was paid in full, Koster sued to recover P46,093.77 as additional compensation for extra work consisting principally of (a) a roof swimming pool and changes on the fourth floor, (b) a recreation room, and (c) electric wiring and an additional pump (Exhibits C, N). Zulueta pleaded abandonment, delay in completion, the contractor’s failure to secure the final public certificates and alleged defects (leaks, uneven terrace filling, cracks). The trial court found completion in accordance with the contract, that delays were due to late material deliveries and agreed additional work and substantial plan changes, and that defects were either waived by Zulueta or were attributable to additions insisted upon by the owner rather than faulty workmanship.
Relevant facts the trial court found were: the architect for the owner issued a certificate of final acceptance dated September 8, 1949 (Exhibit B); the owner occupied the building without contemporaneous objection; Koster had informed the owner of deviations between the contract plans and the City Engineer’s permit plans and requested exemption from liability where acceptance could not be secured from public authorities (Exhibit FF-1); and Zulueta acknowledged and in writing waived certain rights but reserved claims only as to faulty workmanship and pool waterproofing (Exhibit II-2). The court also found that some cracks and settling were caused by the added weight of the swimming pool and other additions, and that some leaks arose from materials called for in the plans rather than defective workmanship. The trial court therefore awarded Koster P46,093.77 with interest, plus 20% of the whole amount as attorney’s fees (P9,218.75) and costs.
On appeal to the Supreme Court (mode: ordinary appeal from the Court of First Instance of Manila), the Court reviewed the factual findin...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did George Edward Koster Inc. become entitled to recover the additional P46,093.77 despite the absence of a final certificate from public authorities as required by Article 7 of the contract?
- Were the asserted defects (leaks, unevenness, cracks) and allegations of abandonment or delay sufficient to defeat Koster’s claim?
- Was the trial court correct in awarding atto...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)