Title
People vs De la Quinta
Case
G.R. No. 14370
Decision Date
Sep 1, 1919
The contractor is primarily liable for the increased construction costs, with guarantors secondarily liable, as war conditions were not deemed to affect the contract.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 14370)

Facts:

  • The United States filed a case against Varadero de la Quinta and defendants Celerino B. Arellano and Cirilo Jose.
  • On February 23, 1916, the U.S. Army invited bids for constructing two scows.
  • Varadero de la Quinta submitted a bid of $15,850, valid for 60 days, with a completion requirement of 90 working days post-acceptance.
  • The proposal included a clause binding the bidder to perform and provide a bond if accepted.
  • Arellano and Jose guaranteed the proposal, agreeing to cover any shortfall if the contract was not fulfilled.
  • The bid was accepted on April 17, 1916, and the defendants were instructed to start work and provide a bond.
  • Varadero de la Quinta requested a six-month extension on April 27, 1916, due to lumber shortages, which was denied.
  • After failing to provide a satisfactory bond, they were warned on May 17, 1916, to commence work by May 20, 1916, or risk losing the contract.
  • The scows were ultimately constructed by the Insular Collector of Customs at a cost of $22,830.88, resulting in a $6,980.88 excess over the original bid.
  • The United States sued to recover this excess amount, leading to a judgment of P13,961.76 in favor of the plaintiff, including interest and costs.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • Yes, the defendants are liable for the difference between the bid amount and the actual cost incurred by the United States.
  • The court found no misjoinder of parties, allowing the guarantors to be held liable alongside the principal debtor.
  • The court modified the judgment...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The court determined that the defendants were liable for the difference due to their failure to perform the contract.
  • The argument that the plaintiff's delay constituted a waiver was rejected, as the defendants did not show intent to fulfill the contract post-acceptance.
  • The court emphasized the importance of timely performance in military supply contracts, requiring a formal contract and bond within ten days of acceptance.
  • Regarding the misjoinder of parties, the court not...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.