Title
Salvador vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 124899
Decision Date
Mar 30, 2004
Romayne appointed Gilbert as attorney-in-fact to manage her property. Gilbert contracted Salvador for development, but disputes arose over additional costs and work stoppage due to lack of permits. Court dismissed Salvador’s claims, citing lack of written authorization for extra works and invalid escalation demands. Respondents’ counterclaims also denied due to mutual fault.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 124899)

Applicable Law

The decision arises from the provisions of the civil law concerning construction contracts, specifically Article 1724 of the Civil Code, which governs the contractor's entitlement to additional costs and adjustments to contract prices based on changes in plans, specifications, or increases in material costs. The ruling also refers to principles set forth in the 1987 Philippine Constitution relevant to civil obligations and transactions.

Antecedent Facts

The contract included stipulations for price adjustments based on substantial increases in material costs and procedures for documenting such increases. Work commenced following a 20% down payment, and while Salvador submitted progress billings that included both agreed-upon services and additional works, disputes arose regarding payment for additional costs and work not formally authorized by the respondents.

Rulings of the Trial Court

The Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal, dismissed Salvador's initial claims and the respondents' counterclaims for lack of sufficient basis. It concluded that Salvador did not adequately specify the increased costs of materials involved, nor did he substantiate the allegations of additional work, either through prior agreements or notifications to the respondents. The trial court emphasized the necessity of a thorough accounting of project expenses.

Rulings of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's dismissal of Salvador’s claims but determined that respondents had established their entitlement to damages due to Salvador’s cessation of work. The appellate court found Salvador acted in bad faith by stopping construction without valid reasons and awarded the respondents reimbursement, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

Claims for Additional Works and Escalation of Contract Price

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial and appellate courts' findings that Salvador’s claims for additional work and price escalation lacked legal grounding. Salvador's failure to comply with the documentation and notice requirements outlined in Article 1724 barred any entitlement to adjustments. The ambiguity in his claims and his inability to substantiate any increases in specific material costs further invalidated his position.

Respondents' Counterclaim and Damages

Despite the initial dismissal of their counterclaims by the trial court, the appellate court awarded respondents damages based on the assertion that they incurred costs to complete the project post-Salvador’s withdrawal. However, the Supreme Court highlighted that the respondents a

...continue reading

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