Continental Cement Corp. v Filipinas Systems, Inc.
GR No. 176917-19, 4 Aug 2009
Nachura, J.:
FACTS:
Plaintiff-appellee Continental Cement Corporation entered into a construction agreement with defendant-appellant Filipinas Systems, Inc. for the construction for its Cement Plant Expansion Project in Bulacan for P82,300,00.00. Under the contract, the period for the project’s completion should be 300 days from 22 February 1993 or up to 18 December 1993. However, on 3 September 1993, petitioner filed an action for Specific Performance with TRO and/or Preliminary Mandatory Injunction against respondent to prevent the latter from pulling out its equipment from the site and stopping the construction of the project. While the suit was pending, the parties entered into a Compromise Agreement. Among others, the said agreement provided for new terms and conditions of payment. Under Item No. 5 thereof, the civil works was to be paid in cash, cement, crushed aggregates as well as steel bars. The agreement, particularly Item No. 6, also admitted that respondent has 109 days [from 6 October 1993 or actual resumption of work, exclusive of contract time extensions for accomplished and future changes] to finish the project. And under item No. 7, the parties further agreed that all future change orders, additional works and construction bulletins shall be implemented by respondent only after petitioner and its architect sign and the two agree on the price which will be billed separately. Thereafter, Banking on items No. 5 and 7 of the Compromise Agreement, respondent claimed that petitioner failed to release the cement and crushed aggregates as per the agreed schedules annexed to the Compromise Agreement and to pay respondent’s subsequent billings also in the form of cement. On the other hand, PETITIONER advanced that respondent failed to finish the project after one hundred nine (109) days as provided in Item No. 6 of the same compromise agreement. The CA said petitioner’s delay was not a sufficient excuse for RESPONDENT to incur in delay and not finish the project.
ISSUE:
Whether or not FILSYSTEM is liable for the whole unfinished project.
HELD:
Yes, but not totally. Respondent has not shown that it was petitioner’s delay that caused the former to fail to complete the project. On the contrary, it appears that despite petitioner’s delays, RESPONDENT was able to accomplish 92.83% of the work. This proves that the completion of the project was not entirely dependent on petitioner’s payment—or prompt payment—of its obligation. respondent’s failure to finish the project is, therefore, unjustified. Accordingly, it must be held liable for the cost of completing the project. Article 1167 of the Civil Code: x x x. It has been shown that at the time respondent stopped work, the project was 92.83% finished, although such work was accomplished beyond the initial deadline of 23 January 1993. But respondent was entitled to time extensions equivalent to the delay in the payment of its progress billings. Hence, respondent must be held liable only for the remaining 7.17% of the project.
