Case Digest (G.R. No. 151037) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Development Corp., the Province of Aklan (petitioner) and Jody King Construction and Development Corp. (respondent) entered into two separate contracts for the design and construction of the Caticlan Jetty Port and Terminal in Malay, Aklan. On January 12, 1998 (Phase I), they agreed on a total project cost of ₱38,900,000, comprising ₱18,700,000 for the passenger terminal and ₱20,200,000 for the jetty facility. During construction, petitioner issued and respondent accepted several variation orders for additional work. Subsequently, on January 5, 2001 (Phase II), they executed a negotiated contract valued at ₱2,475,345.54 for the Passenger Terminal Building. On October 22, 2001, respondent demanded ₱22,419,112.96 for unpaid additional work, unallowed taxes, price escalation, extra labor and overhead costs, and contractual interest. When negotiations failed, respondent sued petitioner in RTC Marikina (Civil Case No. 06-1122-MK) on Case Digest (G.R. No. 151037) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Contractual Agreements
- On January 12, 1998, the Province of Aklan (petitioner) and Jody King Construction and Development Corp. (respondent) entered into a P38.9 million contract for the design and construction of the Caticlan Jetty Port and Terminal (Phase I).
- During construction, petitioner issued and respondent performed agreed variation/change orders for additional works.
- Subsequent Contract and Demand
- On January 5, 2001, petitioner and respondent executed a negotiated contract for Phase II (Passenger Terminal Building) at P2,475,345.54.
- On October 22, 2001, respondent demanded P22,419,112.96 for unpaid additional works, taxes, price escalation, labor and overhead costs, and interest.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- July 13, 2006: respondent sued petitioner in RTC Marikina (Civil Case No. 06-1122-MK); August 17, 2006: RTC issued preliminary attachment. Petitioner denied any unpaid balance, citing approved Change Order No. 3 and respondent’s June 2003 letter absolving liability.
- August 14, 2009: RTC rendered judgment in favor of respondent, awarding specified sums totaling over P12 million plus moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and interest. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied as filed beyond the reglementary period.
- Execution and Appeals
- November 24, 2009: RTC issued writ of execution and garnishment notices to Land Bank, PNB, and DBP branches in Kalibo; banks refused compliance pending COA rules and jurisprudence.
- Petitioner filed two certiorari petitions in the Court of Appeals: CA-G.R. SP No. 111754 (assailing writ of execution) and CA-G.R. SP No. 114073 (challenging denial of due course to its notice of appeal). CA dismissed both petitions (Decisions dated October 18, 2010 and August 31, 2011). Petitioner elevated the cases (G.R. Nos. 197592 & 202623) to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Applicability of Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
- Whether the Commission on Audit (COA) has primary jurisdiction over respondent’s money claims against the Province of Aklan.
- Whether petitioner is estopped from raising lack of jurisdiction.
- Propriety of Writ of Execution
- Whether a writ of execution issued on a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is valid.
- Whether the RTC’s issuance of the writ and garnishment notices violated Administrative Circular No. 10-2000 and COA rules.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)