Title
Uniwide Sales, Inc. vs. Mirafuente and Ng, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 172454
Decision Date
Aug 17, 2007
Uniwide terminated Mirafuente & Ng's architectural services after completion, refusing payment; courts ruled termination unjust, upheld respondent's claim.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 160949)

Contract Terms and Scope of Work

The agreement outlined the scope of work divided into phases with corresponding fees: an initial payment upon signing, followed by payments at various design and construction stages. The contract also stipulated provisions for payment for any additional work due to changes requested by the owner or if work was suspended for reasons not due to the architect. However, there was no specific timeline mentioned for the completion of the architectural services.

Notices and Termination of Services

On August 16, 1995, the Respondent submitted plans for the project, but on August 22, 1995, Petitioner, through its consulting firm, sent a notice formally terminating the architectural contract. The notice indicated that all work would stop immediately and requested the submission of final accounts, creating a legal basis for disputes related to unpaid fees.

Claims for Payment and Non-Payment Issues

Respondent sought payment for work completed, including P437,500 for the Construction Document Phase and P400,000 for a Change Order, but Petitioner failed to respond adequately to these claims. After receiving no payment, Respondent filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on February 27, 1996, seeking the amounts owed plus legal interest and attorney's fees.

Court Decisions and Findings

The RTC ruled in favor of the Respondent on June 19, 2001, ordering Petitioner to pay the total amount claimed, which was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeals on November 14, 2005. The appellate court found that Respondent had submitted the necessary architectural designs before termination of services and determined that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the quality of work that would justify termination.

Legal Analysis of Contractual Obligations

The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the confirmed delivery of architectural designs prior to termination. The Court emphasized that contractual obligations must be executed in good faith as prescribed under Article 1159 of the New Civil Code, underscoring the principle that agreements carry binding force between contracting parties.

Petitioner’s Arguments and Conclusions

Petitioner arg

...continue reading

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