Title
Arwood Industries Inc. vs. D.M. Consunji Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 142277
Decision Date
Dec 11, 2002
Arwood Industries failed to pay D.M. Consunji, Inc. P962,434.78 for completed construction. Courts upheld 2% monthly interest as per contract but deleted attorney’s fees due to lack of justification.
Font Size:

Case Summary (G.R. No. 142277)

Background of the Case

  • Petitioner Arwood Industries, Inc. and respondent D.M. Consunji, Inc. entered into a construction agreement for the Westwood Condominium.
  • The total contract price was P20,800,000.00, but petitioner failed to pay P962,434.78 after project completion.
  • Respondent filed a complaint for recovery of the unpaid balance and damages on August 13, 1993.

Trial Court's Decision

  • The trial court ruled in favor of respondent, ordering petitioner to pay:
    • P962,434.78 with 2% interest per month from November 1990 until payment.
    • P150,000 as attorney's fees.
    • Costs of suit.
  • Petitioner appealed, contesting the imposition of the 2% interest.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

  • The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision regarding the 2% interest, citing Article 6.03 of the Agreement.
  • The appellate court modified the trial court's decision by removing the award for attorney's fees, stating it lacked justification in the body of the decision.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Petitioner contended that the trial court's decision lacked a basis for imposing the 2% interest, arguing that the provision in the Agreement referred only to "monthly progress billings."
  • Petitioner also claimed that the issue of interest was not included in the pre-trial order.

Legal Basis for Interest

  • The court emphasized that the Agreement is the formal expression of the parties' rights and obligations.
  • Upon completion of the project, petitioner had a duty to pay the balance, and its refusal constituted a delay, justifying the imposition of interest as damages.

Interpretation of "Monthly Progress Billings"

  • The court clarified that "monthly progress billings" are part of the contract price and refer to payments due based on work completed.
  • Petitioner failed to provide a convincing alternative definition for "monthly progress billings."

Implications of Delay

  • The court noted that delay in fulfilling contractual obligations is disfavored, as it causes damages to the other party.
  • Respondent's choice to continue work despite delayed payments entitled it to t...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
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.