Title
Local Water Utilities Administration vs. R.D. Policarpio and Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 210970
Decision Date
Jul 22, 2024
LWUA and BCWD held liable for non-payment to RDPCI. The CA affirmed CIAC's solidary ruling, imposing attorney's fees and costs for the petitioner's failure to settle claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 181426)

Trial Court & Initial Proceedings

The controversy began with a construction contract between BCWD and RDPCI for a water supply project. In a 1996 Financial Assistance Contract, LWUA provided BCWD with a loan to fund the project, designating LWUA as an "agent" of BCWD. Following competitive bidding, RDPCI was awarded the construction contract, which required LWUA's approval before any work could commence.

CIAC Proceedings

After claims for payment went unheeded, RDPCI filed a complaint with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) against both LWUA and BCWD. The CIAC Tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of RDPCI, holding that both LWUA and BCWD were solidarily liable to pay RDPCI’s claims, totaling PHP 84,439,378.18.

Court of Appeals Ruling

LWUA appealed to the Court of Appeals, asserting that it was not liable under the construction contract since it was merely an agent of BCWD. The CA affirmed CIAC’s ruling, referencing LWUA’s substantial involvement in the project management which went beyond typical agency functions. The appellate court underscored that LWUA acted in a manner akin to a co-owner of the project.

Supreme Court Consideration

The main issues before the Supreme Court included:

  1. Whether LWUA is a party to the construction contract.
  2. If so, whether its liability is solidary with BCWD.
  3. The validity of the attorney’s fees and other costs awarded by CIAC.

The Supreme Court concluded that LWUA is indeed a party to both the construction contract and the financial assistance contract. The Court reasoned that LWUA’s actions during the contract's execution and its essential role in managing the project indicated a level of involvement that contradicted its claims of merely being an agent.

Solidarity of Obligations

LWUA’s contention that it could not be held solidarily liable was refuted by the Court. Relying on Article 1207 of the Civil Code, the Court clarified that solidary liability may arise from the nature of the obligation. This situation was substantiated by the intertwined relationship between the parties during the contract's execution. The intricate involvement of LWUA in financial transactions and project approvals necessitated its solidary liability.

Attorney's Fees and Costs of Suit

The decision also upheld

...continue reading

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