Title
University of the Philippines vs. Philab Industries Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 152411
Decision Date
Sep 29, 2004
PHILAB fabricated lab furniture for UP's BIOTECH project, funded by FEMF. Despite partial payments, FEMF failed to pay the balance. PHILAB sued UP, but SC ruled no contract existed between PHILAB and UP; liability lies with FEMF.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 176949)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Integrated Research Complex Project at UP Los Baños
    • In 1979, the University of the Philippines (UP) decided to build a Research Complex; the Ferdinand E. Marcos Foundation (FEMF) agreed to fund laboratory furniture for BIOTECH at UP Los Baños.
    • Renato E. Lirio (FEMF) and Dr. William Padolina (BIOTECH) engaged Philab Industries, Inc. (PHILAB) on July 23, 1982 to fabricate and deliver furniture; PHILAB was asked to provide shop drawings and a draft contract.
  • Deliveries, Payments, and the MOA
    • PHILAB made partial deliveries inspected by BIOTECH and FEMF. FEMF paid PHILAB ₱600,000 (Aug 24, 1982), ₱800,000 (Oct 22, 1982), and ₱836,119.52 (Aug 11, 1983) through Padolina—totaling ₱2,288,573.74 of the ₱2,934,068.90 contract price.
    • On October 16, 1982 UP and FEMF executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) obliging FEMF to donate up to ₱29 million for the Research Complex; no written contract was ever finalized between PHILAB and FEMF or UP for the furniture.
  • Demands and Litigation
    • PHILAB’s final invoice of ₱702,939.40 (July 1, 1984) went unpaid. Between 1985–1986, PHILAB sent multiple demand letters to BIOTECH, UP officials, President Aquino, and PCGG; no payment followed due to the 1986 upheaval.
    • PHILAB sued UP for sum of money and damages; the RTC dismissed the complaint (holding FEMF liable), the CA reversed (holding UP liable under unjust enrichment), and UP brought the case to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether PHILAB entered into a valid contract of sale with FEMF and/or with UP.
  • Whether UP can be held liable to PHILAB under the doctrine of unjust enrichment despite not being a contracting party.

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.