Case Digest (G.R. No. 194960)
Facts:
Pro Builders, Inc. v. TG Universal Business Ventures, Inc., G.R. No. 194960, February 03, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Pro Builders, Inc. (contractor) contracted with respondent TG Universal Business Ventures, Inc. (owner) under an Owner‑Contractor Agreement dated 29 May 2007 for construction of a 15‑storey building for P70,000,000, with a 30% down payment (P21,000,000) and completion slated for 31 May 2008; Project Manager was Prime Edifice, Inc.; Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. was a surety/third‑party respondent.Work started after notice of award (15 May 2007), site turnover (22 May 2007) and receipt by Pro Builders of the 30% down payment on 19 June 2007. TG later took over the project, engaged a new contractor, and claimed excess cost to complete (P13,489,807.48) plus other damages, prompting TG to file a Request for Arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). Pro Builders counterclaimed for unpaid accomplishments and several damages, supported by progress billings.
An Arbitral Tribunal (CIAC) issued a Decision on 1 October 2008 finding both parties breached the Agreement, awarding Pro Builders unpaid accomplishment of P2,104,642.11 and awarding TG only P58,333.34 (rental of staging area), denying TG’s claims for unliquidated down payment, cost to complete, most miscellaneous expenses, exemplary and litigation damages, and attorney’s fees; it also discussed solidarity liability of Prudential on the bonds.
TG filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. On 13 October 2010 the Court of Appeals modified the CIAC decision and awarded TG P5,582,921.10 (balance of unspent 30% down payment), P7,771,553.04 (cost to complete), P77,200.00 (miscellaneous), and P500,000.00 attorney’s fees, and deleted the P2,104,642.11 award to Pro Builders; its denial of other claims was otherwise affirmed. A motion for reconsideration by Pro Builders was denied by CA resolution dated 16 December 2010.
Pro Builders filed this Pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals properly take cognizance of TG’s appeal from the CIAC award?
- Which party’s valuation of Pro Builders’ accomplished works should be credited — Pro Builders’ progress billings or TG’s joint evaluation?
- Was TG entitled to recover the unconsumed down payment, cost to complete, miscellaneous damages and attorney’s fees claimed from Pro Builders?
- Were Pro Builders’ counterclaims for unpaid w...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)