Title
Edron Construction Corp. vs. Provincial Government of Surigao del Sur
Case
G.R. No. 220211
Decision Date
Jun 5, 2017
Petitioners completed construction projects for respondent, who failed to pay despite Certificates of Final Acceptance. Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioners, citing waiver of defenses, final acceptance as proof of completion, and upheld reduced payment with legal interest.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 142641)

Applicable Law

The case is governed by provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as well as relevant civil law regarding contracts and specific performance.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by petitioners Edron Construction Corporation and Edmer Y. Lim against the Provincial Government of Surigao del Sur, claiming specific performance and damages due to non-payment for construction services rendered under three contracts. The petitioners alleged that despite completing the work and receiving Certificates of Final Acceptance, they were owed a total of P8,870,729.67, which they demanded after several reminders.

Respondent's Defense

In their Answer with Counterclaim, the respondent admitted the existence of the contracts but contended there was no outstanding balance owed to the petitioners. The respondent raised several defenses, including claims of defective work, the petitioners being liable for underruns, and the absence of a sworn statement from the petitioners certifying that all obligations for labor and materials had been fulfilled.

Motion to Dismiss

More than a year after filing the Answer, the respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the petitioners had failed to state a cause of action, specifically pointing to the lack of a sworn statement required under the construction agreements. The RTC denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed.

Trial Findings

During the trial, both sides presented evidence regarding the completion and acceptance of the works. Petitioners argued that a Presidential Flagship Committee had evaluated their claims and indicated a lower amount should be paid, which the respondent still failed to honor. Conversely, the respondent's witnesses claimed discrepancies existed due to deviations from the specifications.

RTC Decision and Rationale

The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, determining they were entitled to receive P4,326,174.50 based on accepted evaluations, along with interest and legal fees. The court highlighted that the respondent's acceptance of the works signified its obligations to make payment, as it had not provided adequate evidence of any defects or failures.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

In its ruling, the CA reversed the RTC's decision, asserting that the lack of a sworn statement was a critical condition precedent for any demand for final payment. The CA held that the absence of this document invalidated the petitioners' claim.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found merit in the petitioners’ arguments, primarily noting that the CA had erroneously based it

...continue reading

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