Title
Uy vs. Public Estates Authority
Case
G.R. No. 147925-26
Decision Date
Jul 7, 2010
Dispute over Heritage Park Project costs; Uy sought reimbursement for standby equipment, additional hauling, and water truck mobilization. SC ruled for recomputation of standby costs, denied other claims due to lack of written approval, upheld injunction, and rejected res judicata.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 168184)

Applicable Law

The 1987 Philippine Constitution serves as the legal framework for this case, given that the decision date is post-1990. The principles of contract law and the standards guiding the computation of damages and equity are particularly relevant.

Summary of Motions for Reconsideration

Uy filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration aimed at disputing the damages calculation for standby equipment and seeking additional compensation for unauthorized costs incurred during construction. PEA responded with its own Motion for Reconsideration, challenging the validity of Uy’s claims based on the principle of res judicata, arguing the finality of earlier decisions rendered by the courts regarding these monetary claims.

Petitioner’s Claims on Damages

Uy contended that the methodology utilized to compute the damages for standby equipment costs failed to account for the actual number of equipment deployed during project delays. He argued for recalculating these costs using a formula that considers the duration of the delay and the precise array of equipment that remained on standby, as stipulated in the activities undertaken.

Court’s Ruling on Standby Equipment Costs

The court partially agreed with Uy, acknowledging his argument regarding the necessity of using actual equipment numbers in calculating standby costs. However, the Court noted that not all equipment mobilized was operational and mandated the remand of the case back to the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) for accurate calculations based on the adjusted formula.

Ruling on Additional Claims

Regarding the claims for reimbursement of additional hauling distances and mobilization of water trucks, the court maintained that any such claims required prior written consent from PEA, which Uy did not acquire. Thus, the court found that Uy could not invoke the principle of unjust enrichment to recover such costs, as the absence of formal approval undermined his claims.

Injunction and Res Judicata Considerations

In addressing the injunction from CIAC Case No. 03-2001, the court reiterated that Uy’s claims were interconnected and therefore fell under the same cause of action as outlined in the Construction and Landscaping Agreement. It emphasized that matters of res judicata apply, asserting that differing claims could not be pursued simply due to their variance in composition or form unless the facts presented were distinct.

Final Resolution

The court conclud

...continue reading

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