Title
Philippine Realty and Holdings Corp. vs. Ley Construction and Development Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 165548
Decision Date
Jun 13, 2011
PRHC and LCDC disputed construction delays, unpaid balances, and a P36M escalation agreement. SC ruled PRHC liable for P57.38M after offsetting liabilities, citing force majeure and apparent authority.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 190517)

Facts:

  • Parties and Contracts
    • Ley Construction and Development Corporation (LCDC) was contracted by Philippine Realty & Holdings Corporation (PRHC) to build four projects:
1) Alexandra Cluster C (P68,000,000) – two seven-storey buildings with basement (25 April 1988) 2) Alexandra Cluster B (P140,500,000) – eleven-storey twin towers with common basement (25 July 1988) 3) Alexandra Cluster E (P140,500,000) – eleven-storey twin towers with common basement (23 November 1988) 4) Tektite Towers Phase I (P729,138,964) – high-rise building (10 October 1989)
  • All agreements provided a fixed contract price (no material escalation), allowed time extensions for specified causes, and required a performance bond before mobilization.
  • Subsequent Agreements and Cash Infusions
    • Letter-agreement dated 9 August 1991: LCDC to infuse P36 million to complete Tektite; PRHC (through Construction Manager Dennis Abcede) to grant an equal price escalation when 95% complete. The document was signed by Abcede and LCDC but left unsigned under PRHC’s name.
    • From August to December 1991, LCDC advanced P38,248,463.92 directly to suppliers. Monthly reports were sent to PRHC; PRHC never objected.
    • PRHC’s 7 December 1992 letter (signed by Abcede and approved by Vice-President Joselito Santos) proposed to apply the P36 million against alleged liquidated damages of P39,326,817.15, waiving the P3,326,817.15 difference.
  • Procedural History
    • On 2 February 1996, LCDC filed suit in RTC Makati (Civil Case No. 96-160) for various claims: P36 million escalation, over-infusion, unpaid balances for Projects 1–3, concreting works, driver’s quarters, plus damages and attorney’s fees.
    • The RTC (31 January 2001; amended 7 May 2001) awarded LCDC P61, (approx.) plus P7,112,738.82 for concreting works, P750,000 attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs.
    • The Court of Appeals (30 September 2004) reversed, holding mutual liabilities and set-off: net P3,747,793.50 due PRHC; denied escalation, denied LCDC’s unpaid concreting balance, struck attorney’s fees.
    • SC consolidated PRHC’s petition (G.R. No. 165548) and LCDC’s petition (G.R. No. 167879) and granted review.

Issues:

  • Whether a valid P36 million escalation agreement (superseding the fixed-price prohibition) was formed.
  • Whether LCDC is liable for liquidated damages for delays in Projects 1–3 and Tektite under Article VII.
  • Whether the CA properly awarded balances for Project 3, its driver’s quarters, and concreting works omitted in the stipulation of facts.
  • Whether LCDC is liable for P2,006,000 in corrective waterproofing works in Project 2.
  • Whether LCDC is entitled to attorney’s fees, expenses of litigation, and costs.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.