Case Digest (G.R. No. 188027)
Facts:
Swire Realty Development Corporation v. Specialty Contracts General and Construction Services, Inc. and Jose Javellana, G.R. No. 188027, August 09, 2017, Third Division, Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Swire Realty Development Corporation, sued Specialty Contracts General and Construction Services, Inc. (also referred to as Specserv or the respondents) and its president Jose Javellana, Jr. for breach of an Agreement to Undertake Waterproofing Works dated December 27, 1996. Under the Agreement the respondents undertook waterproofing for the Garden View Tower condominium project for P2,000,000.00 to be completed within 100 calendar days (until April 6, 1997), paid 20% down and the balance by progress billings subject to 10% retention and 1% withholding tax; the contract provided for penalties for delay and a mechanism for change orders (Article V on time of completion; Article VII on change orders), and listed specific covered areas including the swimming pool (234.20 sq.m.).
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 224, found breach and awarded Swire P400,000.00 (moneys advanced), P124,931.40 (contract price paid to Esicor for unfinished works), and P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees in a decision dated July 9, 2004; the RTC denied the respondents’ motion for reconsideration on October 25, 2004. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 84706. The CA, finding proof that additional works were performed, reversed the RTC in a Decision dated February 24, 2009 and directed Swire to pay Specserv P157,702.06 plus legal interest, after computing a 90% accomplishment rate, additional works, advances and penalties. Swire’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in a Resolution dated May 25, 2009.
Swire filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the CA Decision and Resolution. It argued inter alia that the CA misappreciated the facts by treating certain “additional works” (notably second waterproofing of the swimming pool allegedly required by change in depth) as outside the Agreement’s scope, that the CA ignored Swire’s proven actual damages, and that the RTC’s findings were better supported by evidence. The respondents contended that the Supreme Court could not review CA findings of fact...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court review the Court of Appeals’ findings of fact in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45?
- Did the additional waterproofing of the swimming pool constitute “additional works” outside the Agreement’s scope for which the respondents are entitled to...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)