Case Digest (G.R. No. 229262)
Facts:
H. S. Pow Construction and Development Corp. v. Shaughnessy Development Corporation, G.R. No. 229262, July 07, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner is H.S. Pow Construction and Development Corporation (HSPCDC); the respondent is Shaughnessy Development Corporation (SDC). HSPCDC was engaged to construct subdivision concrete roads, an underground RCP drainage system, water distribution and an elevated steel water reservoir for SDC’s Summerfield Subdivision under a written Construction Contract for P10,500,000.00 with a 180-day completion term and no escalation clause. Construction commenced May 21, 2002.
HSPCDC alleged it performed work and undertook change/variation orders costing P552,829.75 and was also instructed to build three duplex units outside the original scope. HSPCDC completed major roadworks by March 3, 2003 and submitted a progress billing on March 5, 2003, but SDC allegedly failed to pay. HSPCDC sent demand letters and on April 4, 2005 filed a Complaint for Sum of Money claiming P2,122,704.55 (main contract balance, duplex houses, and variation orders), plus interest, attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and exemplary damages.
SDC answered, denying liability and alleging HSPCDC delayed and abandoned work (notably the water tank and well-drilling), failed to build the basketball court and sidewalks shown in signed plans, and failed to provide a performance bond; SDC counterclaimed for sums spent to complete unfinished/defective work, delay damages and exemplary damages. Trial proceeded before Branch 223, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City.
On October 29, 2010 the RTC rendered judgment largely for HSPCDC, awarding P44,270.94 as balance on the main contract, P552,829.75 for variation works, P488,290.00 for the duplex buildings, and 10% attorney’s fees, with 12% interest from finality of the decision. HSPCDC’s motion for partial reconsideration was denied on November 18, 2011. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, by Decision dated August 16, 2016 (CA-G.R. CV No. 98277), reversed and set aside the RTC decision and rendered a new judgment ordering mutual payments: SDC to pay HSPCDC P1,581,584.80 (balance under contract) and P488,290.00 (duplex houses); HSPCDC to pay SDC P362,781.72 (well-drilling), P359,503.80 (elevated steel water tank), and P1,050,000.00 for delay, with amounts subject to set-off under Art. 1278, Civil Code and 6% interest from finality of the CA decision. The CA deleted the RTC’s attorney’s fees award. The CA denied both parties’ motions for reconsideration on January 11, 2017.
HSPCDC filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking modification of the CA Decision and Resolu...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in directing petitioner H.S. Pow Construction and Development Corporation to pay respondent Shaughnessy Development Corporation P362,781.72 for well-drilling and P359,503.80 for the elevated water steel tank?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding petitioner liable to pay respon...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)