Title
Roblett Industrial Construction Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 116682
Decision Date
Jan 2, 1997
RICC leased equipment from CEC, incurred unpaid accounts, and entered an offsetting agreement. RICC claimed overpayment and unauthorized agreement, but courts upheld the agreement's validity, citing estoppel and insufficient evidence, ordering RICC to pay the balance with interest and fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-31979)

Factual Background

In 1985 CEC leased construction equipment to RICC, resulting in unpaid rentals of ₱342,909.38. On December 19, 1985, RICC, through Aller Jr., executed an Agreement confirming the balance and offsetting ₱115,000.00 in construction materials, reducing the debt to ₱227,909.38. On December 18, 1985, RICC issued post-dated checks amounting to ₱10,000.00, which were dishonored and re-added to the account, bringing the total to ₱237,909.38. On July 24, 1986, CEC demanded payment of ₱237,909.38 by July 31, 1986; RICC requested 30 days’ extension. RICC later claimed it had overpaid by ₱12,000.00, based on Equipment Daily Time Reports covering May 2 to June 14, 1985, reflecting only 191 hours of use.

Trial Court Findings

On December 19, 1990, the RTC of Makati ordered RICC to pay CEC ₱237,909.38 with legal interest from July 31, 1986, litigation expenses of ₱2,000.00, attorney’s fees of 20% of the sum due, and costs of suit. The court held (1) the December 19, 1985 Agreement was valid, reflected the true intention of the parties, and could not be partially repudiated; (2) RICC’s evidence of partial daily time reports was incomplete, failing to cover the full lease period of March 28 to July 12, 1985.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On July 29, 1994, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. It adopted the trial court’s findings on the validity of the Agreement, the binding effect of admissions under Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, and estoppel under Article 1431 of the Civil Code.

Issues on Appeal

  1. Whether the Agreement of December 19, 1985 is unenforceable for want of authority and board approval by RICC.
  2. Whether RICC fully discharged or overpaid its rental obligation by offsetting P115,000.00 in materials and by application of the May 2 to June 14, 1985 time reports.

Validity of the Agreement

The Supreme Court held that RICC, having limited its appellate argument before the Court of Appeals to the issue of full payment, cannot thereafter challenge the Agreement’s validity. Moreover, RICC’s unsworn traversals admitted the Agreement’s genuineness and due execution under Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court and Article 1431 of the Civil Code. Contracts must be considered in toto (Art. 1308, New Civil Code) and cannot be selectively repudiated.

Computation of Obligations and Estoppel

The Cour

...continue reading

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