Case Digest (G.R. No. 212327)
Facts:
Linear Construction Corporation v. Dolmar Property Ventures, Inc., G.R. No. 212327, November 17, 2021, the Supreme Court Third Division, Zalameda, J., writing for the Court.In 1998, Dolmar Property Ventures, Inc. (Dolmar) contracted Linear Construction Corporation (Linear) to construct the drainage system for the Dolmar Golden Hills Subdivision in Loma De Gato, Marilao, Bulacan (the Marilao Project). Later, in 2003, the parties entered into separate contracts covering construction at San Vicente, Sta. Maria, Bulacan (the Sta. Maria Project). The Sta. Maria Contracts provided for progress payments less an 8% retention and conditioned release of retention on final written acceptance, submission of as-built plans, and proof of payment of project-related debts.
Dolmar engaged R.S. Caparros and Associates to manage the Marilao Project and, after joint inspections (which Linear did not attend), alleged numerous defects in Marilao's drainage works. R.S. Caparros prepared cost estimates for rectification totaling Php6,379,935.00. Dolmar also retained Mr. Elpidio D. Agapito to undertake drainage rehabilitation. Linear completed the Sta. Maria Project and demanded release of its retention money, which it eventually quantified at Php3,823,997.96. Dolmar acknowledged it owed the retention money but refused to release it, asserting legal compensation against the rectification costs it claimed for the Marilao Project and alleging that the offset left Linear owing Php2,613,642.88. Linear denied liability.
Linear filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money (Civil Case No. MC07-3385) before Branch 213, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City seeking the retention money and damages. In a Decision dated January 22, 2013, the RTC ruled for Linear, ordering Dolmar to pay Php3,823,997.96 plus interest and various damages and costs, and finding that legal compensation had not been established and that Dolmar acted in bad faith in withholding the certificate of acceptance and retention money. Dolmar's motion for reconsideration was denied on June 24, 2013.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 101201 reversed in a Decision dated April 29, 2014, holding that Dolmar had proven liabilities for rectification costs (Php6,379,935.00), that all requisites for legal compensation were present, and that Linear was therefore indebted to Dolmar; the CA ordered Linear to pay Dolmar Php2,555,937.04 (the balance after offset), and awarded exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
Linear filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the CA Decision. The petition initially omitted certain procedural attachments (certified copy of the CA decision, dated affidavit of service, proof of corporate authority for verification, and a soft copy) but Linear later submitted the...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the petition be dismissed for Linear’s alleged failure to strictly comply with procedural requirements?
- Was Linear’s claim to the retention money extinguished ipso jure by legal compensation in favo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)