Petitioner: Ernesto Deiparine, Jr Respondents: Hon. Courts of Appeals, Cesario (1) The contention of the petitioner that the specification Carungay and Engr. Nicanor Trinidad was not included in their contract is untenable. It is true Date April 23, 1993 that there was no real specification included in the Cruz, J. contract but the same was intended to be followed after the signing and before the commencement of the DOCTRINE There can be rescission is the injured party construction. Also, the petitioner’s own project manager is left without other recourse but to rescind the contract. admitted that Deiparine was actually instructing them (the construction people) to ignore the specific orders or (SHORT VERSION) instructions of Carungay and Trinidad. In addition, the Deiparine Construction Firm is not a very able firm Respondent Carungay entered to a construction contract since none of them is a engineer except one who only with the Petitioner Deiparine, who is a contractor. visited the construction site two months after the However, it came to the knowledge of Carungay, commencement of the construction. through Trinidad (his engineer in charge for the construction), that Deiparine is not following the There are two sets of specifications in the contract: (1) specifications they agreed on for the building and the list of the materials to be used; (2) the required structural structure lacks strength and not safe for its future compressive strength of 3,000 psi. Deiparine eventually occupants. Carungay moved to rescind the contract. CA recognized that there really are specifications but ruled in favor of Carungay. SC affirmed. contested that the minimum compressive strength of 3,000 psi is unnecessary for buildings since 3,000 psi is FACTS only required for roads. According to him, 2,500 psi is enough for buildings. Respondent Carungay entered to a construction contract with Petitioner Deiparine (a contractor) for the The explicit deviance to the specifications, in his intial construction of a three-storey dormitory in Cebu City. refusal to undergo core testing, and his preference to his Carungay agreed to pay P970,000 inclusive of personal profit than that of the proper execution of the contractor’s fee, and Deiparine bound himself to erect contract, shows bad faith. The court sees no reason to the said building “in strict accordance to plans and disturb the ruling of CA that Deiparine did not deal with specifications.” The Plan specified that the building the Carungays in good faith. His breach if this duty must have 3,000 psi (pounds per square inch) as the constituted a substantial violation of the contract acceptable minimum compressive strength. correctible by judicial rescission. When the structure failed under this test, the respondents were left with Through Engr. Trinidad, it came to the knowledge of the no other recourse than to rescind their contract. respondents that Deiparine is not following the plans and that the “construction works are faulty and haphazardly” DECISION in order to maximize his personal profit. Carungay sent memorandums to Deiparine complaining about the work Judgment affirmed. done by the latter, but the same were ignored. O Carungay asked for a core testing to examine the compressive strength of the building. Deiparine eventually agreed to undertake such test. The result was against Deiparine, the building failed to bear the minimum 3,000 psi compressive strength. Carungay move to rescind the contract. RTC ruled in the favor of the respondents. CA affirmed. Hence this case. The petitioners are claiming that the specification of 3,000 psi is not included in their contract thus not a valid ground for rescission.