Title
Del Monte Philippines, Inc. vs. Aragones
Case
G.R. No. 153033
Decision Date
Jun 23, 2005
DMPI contracted MEGA-WAFF for pavement; Aragones supplied custom blocks. MEGA-WAFF failed to pay Aragones, who sued DMPI. Court ruled DMPI liable under Article 1729, awarding damages and fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202687)

Applicable Law

The principles governing this case are derived from the Civil Code of the Philippines, particularly Articles 1467 and 1729, guiding contracts for the sale of goods and those for works, labor, and materials. The determination of liability is grounded in these civil law provisions which protect subcontractors and material suppliers.

Nature of the Agreement

The central question is whether the Supply Agreement constituted a contract of sale or one for a piece of work. The Agreement included terms that required Aragones to provide specific materials and services for the production of concrete blocks tailored to MEGA-WAFF’s specifications, illustrating a contract for a piece of work rather than a straightforward sale.

Background and Developments

On September 18, 1988, DMPI contracted MEGA-WAFF for pavement installation within a defined time frame, necessitating the supply of concrete blocks. MEGA-WAFF entered into a Supply Agreement with Dynablock Enterprises, with detailed obligations concerning materials, equipment, and labor. Discrepancies arose when production timelines extended beyond initial estimates, leading to contractual penalties imposed on MEGA-WAFF by DMPI.

Delayed Payment and Legal Proceedings

After installation delays, Aragones sought to collect unpaid dues from MEGA-WAFF. He attempted to have DMPI withhold payments owed to MEGA-WAFF in order to satisfy his claims but was advised to secure a court directive for DMPI to act. Notably, DMPI fulfilled its payment obligations to MEGA-WAFF while failing to address Aragones's claims.

Initial Ruling by the Trial Court

Aragones filed a complaint against MEGA-WAFF and DMPI, arguing that Article 1729 entitles laborers or suppliers to seek payment directly from the project owner for amounts owed to a contractor. The trial court ruled in favor of Aragones, stating that he had a right to payment up to the amount owed from DMPI to MEGA-WAFF at the time of his claim.

Court of Appeals Decision

On appeal, DMPI contested the ruling, raising multiple points, including the claim of no privity of contract with Aragones. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision, asserting that the Supply Agreement constituted a contract for a piece of work based on the custom and specific obligations outlined. They reaffirmed the legal right of Aragones to pursue payment because the provisions of Article 1729 create a protective transactional bond between subcontractors and project owners.

Final Supreme Court Ruling

The Petition for Review on Certiorari, filed by DMPI, was ultimately denied by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the findings of the lower courts. The Supreme Court emphasized the contractual nature of the Agreeme

...continue reading

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