G.R. No. 200401 - Metro Rail Transit Development Corp. vs. Gammon Philippines, Inc.

Metro Rail Transit Development Corporation (MRTDC) engaged Parsons Interpro JV as management team for the MRT-3 North Triangle Development Project, including a 16-hectare commercial podium structure (the Podium).
On April 30, 1997, Parsons invited Gammon Philippines, Inc. (Gammon) to bid for Level 1–4 concrete works of the Podium; Gammon submitted bids on May 30, 1997.

Parsons issued a Letter of Award and Notice to Proceed (First NTP) dated August 27, 1997, for ₱1,401,672,095.00, subject to Gammon’s signing of comfort letters and return of contract documents within seven days.
Gammon countersigned and returned the First NTP (without contract documents) on September 2–3, 1997, mobilized to de-water and clean up the site, and forwarded the comfort letter and later the formal contract documents on September 9, 1997.

MRTDC suspended further mobilization pending foreign-exchange review by letter of September 8, 1997; Parsons confirmed “temporary suspension” of all contract requirements except redesign of slabs and site clean-up.
MRTDC downscaled Podium scope to Level 2, issued a Second NTP for engineering services on February 18, 1998, and Gammon began design work and submitted revised price proposals.
A Third NTP dated April 2, 1998, was acknowledged by Gammon; later in June 1998 MRTDC issued an Amended (Fourth) NTP canceling the First and Third NTPs, which Gammon accept-qualifiedly, leading MRTDC to threaten award to another party.
Gammon claimed reimbursement for mobilization costs and damages and filed a Notice of Claim with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) on July 1, 1999.

CIAC assembled an arbitral tribunal, MRTDC challenged jurisdiction but Supreme Court in Gammon v. MRTDC (516 Phil. 561) upheld CIAC jurisdiction over construction disputes.
On March 27, 2007, CIAC awarded Gammon ₱5,493,639.27 for engineering, design, de-watering and clean-up plus ₱53,149,330.35 as lost profits (total ₱58,642,969.62).
Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 98569 (Oct. 14, 2011 Decision; Jan. 25, 2012 Resolution) affirmed the CIAC award and denied MRTDC’s motion for reconsideration.
MRTDC filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 contesting contract perfection, law-of-case application, judicial admission, sufficiency of proof for damages, and entitlement to attorney’s fees.

Whether a perfected contract existed between MRTDC and Gammon when Gammon returned the signed First NTP and contract documents.
Whether the doctrine of the law of the case in Gammon v. MRTDC applies to preclude re-litigation of contract perfection.
Whether MRTDC is bound by its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim admitting willingness to pay ₱5,493,639.27 without qualification.
Whether Gammon’s claims for (a) reimbursement of engineering services, design work, site de-watering and clean-up, and (b) lost profits, were proven with the requisite certainty.