Title
Cruz vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 71557
Decision Date
Nov 29, 1988
Architect Pablo S. Cruz’s claim for additional fees on integral hospital equipment was upheld by the Supreme Court, rejecting COA’s disallowance based on equipment non-integrality.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 71557)

Background of the Case

On September 27, 1960, Cruz entered into a "Contract of Services" with GSIS for the construction of the GSIS Hospital, agreeing to provide various architectural services for a fee based on a percentage of the total cost of the project, initially set at Ten Million Pesos (₱10,000,000.00). The contract stipulated that any adjustments in the construction costs would also necessitate adjustments in the architect's fees. When the project's final cost was approved at Fifteen Million Pesos (₱15,000,000.00) with a specific allocation for equipment, Cruz claimed additional fees, including costs associated with built-in equipment Items “F,” “G,” and “H.”

Claim Reduction and COA Decision

Cruz’s initial claim amounting to ₱232,091.96 for additional architect's fees was reduced by GSIS during an audit to ₱140,737.49. The disapproved amount of ₱91,354.47, corresponding to Items “F,” “G,” and “H,” was deemed non-compensable by COA, which ruled that the costs of these equipment items did not fall within the definition of construction costs integral to computed architect's fees, asserting that such items were not part of the construction materials requiring architectural expertise.

Arguments from Petitioner and Respondent

Cruz argued that Items “F,” “G,” and “H” should be considered part of the total construction cost since their integration was necessary for the hospital's operational functionality. He cited the opinion from the Board of Examiners for Architects and highlighted that contrary to COA's position, he had indeed exercised architectural skill in determining specifications for these items, which were subjected to public bidding. COA maintained that these items were merely additional features and, therefore, outside the purview of construction costs based on a cited U.S. case.

Legal Interpretation and Reasoning

The Court emphasized that in determining whether the items in question should be included in the computation of construction costs, it was essential to interpret the "Contract of Services." The ambiguity of the term “total construction cost” necessitated an exploration of the contracting parties' intentions, bolstered by affidavits from GSIS

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.