G.R. No. 166857 - D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc. vs. Freyssinet Philippines, Inc.

The case involves a petition for review of the Court of Appeals' decisions regarding a dispute between D.M. Wenceslao & Associates, Inc. (DMWAI) and Freyssinet Philippines, Inc. (FPI).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding DMWAI liable to pay FPI P322,413.15 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the complaint.
The appellate court modified the trial court's ruling by deleting awards for attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
DMWAI's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the petition for review.

DMWAI undertook the construction of the National Historical Institute Building (NHI project) in January 1989.
A contract was signed on January 6, 1989, between DMWAI and FPI for the fabrication and delivery of pre-stressed piles, with specific payment terms.
FPI filed a complaint against Wenceslao, Jr. in August 1993, claiming unpaid amounts for the completed NHI project.
An amended complaint was filed to include DMWAI as a party defendant, which was admitted by the trial court despite DMWAI's objections.

The trial court ruled in favor of FPI, ordering DMWAI and Wenceslao, Jr. to pay P322,413.15 with interest at 18% per annum and additional attorney's fees.
DMWAI appealed, contesting the trial court's jurisdiction over the IBRD account and the liability for the monetary awards.

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the amended complaint was valid and did not introduce new issues.
It affirmed DMWAI's liability for the IBRD account, noting that DMWAI did not object to the evidence presented regarding the outstanding balance.
The appellate court modified the interest rate from 18% to 6% per annum for the IBRD account, with a higher rate applicable after the judgment became final.

DMWAI questioned the trial court's jurisdiction over the IBRD account and its liability for interest on that account.
DMWAI argued that the trial court erred in applying Rule 10, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, claiming it did not have the opportunity to present evidence regarding the IBRD account.

The court found that the trial court had jurisdiction over the IBRD account as it was part of the offsetting of accounts discussed during the trial.
The court cited precedent indicating that evidence presented with the con...continue reading