Title
Source: Supreme Court
Asian Construction and Development Corp. vs. Tulabut
Case
G.R. No. 161904
Decision Date
Apr 26, 2005
ACDC contracted Tulabut for construction work, failed to pay fully, and issued a dishonored check. Courts ruled ACDC liable for unpaid balance and attorney’s fees due to bad faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 102193-97)

Factual Antecedents

In January 1998, ACDC was awarded a contract for the development of the Philippine Centennial Exposition, which included the construction of several food establishments at a designated site in Clarkfield, Pampanga. Subsequently, ACDC contracted Tulabut to supply necessary labor, materials, and supervision for the project, with an agreement stipulating a payment of P3,414,058.60 via progress billing. By June 8, 1998, ACDC had only a minor balance of P3,246.12 remaining after making most payments. In July 1998, ACDC engaged Tulabut for additional construction work valued at P400,000.75. ACDC issued a check to Tulabut as partial payment; however, the check was later dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite completing the project, Tulabut was not compensated in full, leading him to file a complaint for collection with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, Pampanga.

Legal Proceedings and Trial Court Decision

Tulabut's complaint stated that by May 29, 1998, ACDC owed him P900,000.00—exclusive of damages and attorney's fees—and requested a writ of preliminary attachment. The RTC granted the attachment after Tulabut posted a bond. ACDC’s response contested the completeness of the work and claimed it had overpaid based on actual accomplishments. Tulabut presented evidence during the proceedings, including acknowledgment of receiving a partial payment of P125,571.81. The trial court eventually ruled in favor of Tulabut, ordering ACDC to pay the outstanding balance of P364,083.76, legal interest, and attorney's fees.

Court of Appeals Ruling

ACDC's appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) contested the ruling by arguing that any liability for payment should be triggered only after a certificate of completion was issued. The CA dismissed the appeal and modified the lower court's decision, based on the principle of estoppel, asserting that ACDC had approved the relevant purchase orders and billings. The CA decreased the award for attorney’s fees to 10% of the amount due. The appellate court maintained that ACDC failed to substantiate its claim that it was standard practice in the construction industry for retention payments to occur only upon the issuance of a completion certificate.

Arguments by the Petitioner

In seeking relief from the SC, ACDC argued that the CA erroneously applied estoppel, assuming project completion without sufficient evidence. It insisted that the approval of documents like purchase orders did not equate to acknowledging the completion of work. Additionally, ACDC contended that the CA improperly awarded attorney's fees, asserting it had acted in good faith despite the dishonored check.

Supreme Court’s Rationale and Findings

The Supreme Court determined that the crux of the appeal hinged on factual issues rather than legal ones, emphasizing that only

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.