Case Digest (G.R. No. 172454)
Facts:
Uniwide Sales, Inc. v. Mirafuente & Ng, Inc., G.R. No. 172454, August 17, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Uniwide Sales, Inc. engaged respondent Mirafuente & Ng, Inc. (through Architect Robert Mirafuente) under a written "Design Services: Architectural Services Agreement" dated December 13, 1993, whereby respondent was to prepare, plan and design the proposed Uniwide Sales Mall on a 10-hectare Roxas Boulevard lot for an architectural-design fee of P2,500,000. The contract specified the scope of work, a phased payment schedule (10% on signing, 15% schematic, 35% design development, 35% construction documents, 5% construction phase), provisions on suspension/abandonment and change orders, but contained no fixed time for completion or explicit completion date.
Respondent transmitted architectural plans and a change-order package to petitioner: it states the complete package was submitted to Arch. Rene De Guzman on August 9, 1995 (TR# BS 00183) and copies were sent to petitioner on August 16, 1995. Petitioner, by its project manager Asian Technicon, on August 22, 1995 (received August 23, 1995), served a written notice terminating respondent's consultancy services, requesting return of documents and a final statement of account. Respondent repeatedly demanded payment for the Construction Document Phase (P437,500) and for the Change Order (P400,000); petitioner asked for supporting documents and said it was reconciling records.
When demands went unheeded, respondent filed a complaint for sum of money on February 27, 1996 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Branch 155, seeking P437,500 and P400,000 plus 24% interest from August 9, 1995, attorneys' fees and costs. By Decision of June 19, 2001, the RTC ruled for respondent, ordering Uniwide to pay P837,500 plus legal interest of 6% per annum from date of extrajudicial demand until finality, attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of the amount due, and costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed by Decision dated November 14, 2005, finding that respondent had submitted the complete and final set of designs prior to termination and that petitioner's termination appeared a ploy to avoid payment; the CA also noted petitioner failed to prove dissatisfaction or prior termination and that construction had already begun.
Petitioner filed a petition under Rule 45 seeking review of the CA decision, arguing (inter alia) that the CA's factual inferences were manifestly erroneous: respondent delayed performance (an alleged verbal six-month completion agreement was not met), petitioner had ve...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Under a Rule 45 petition, may the Supreme Court disturb the Court of Appeals' findings of fact and inferences drawn therefrom?
- Did petitioner validly terminate the contract prior to respondent's compliance such that petitioner was excused from paying...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)