Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TIPONES Activity November 22, 2020
TIPONES Activity November 22, 2020
Regarding the penalty for delay in the amount of ANS: Article 1715 gives the Spouses Dimaano
One Million Three Hundred Eighty Seven the options to require the removal of the work,
Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P1,387,500.00), to rectify the flaws in their work, or to have the
the same should also be sustained. A contract is work done at the expense of the contractor.Here,
the law between the parties, and they are bound the defective workmanship was amply proven
by its stipulations so long as they are not by an architect. Hence, Spuses Dimaano should
contrary to law, customs, public policy and not be held liable
public morals. The penalty for delay is agreed
10. Shangri-La Properties, Inc. v. BF Corp.,
upon by the parties themselves. The fact that
G.R. Nos. 187552-53 & 187608-09, October
appellant was already delayed in the completion
15, 2019 (Art. 1724)
of the duplex is undisputed. In fact, record
Facts: requisites under Article 1724. Accordingly, the
Court reinstates the Arbitral Tribunal's awards in
The present controversy originated from the
favor of BFC for variation orders included in
agreement of Shangri-la Properties, Inc. (SLPI)
progress billings amounting to
and BF Corporation (BFC) for the execution of
P9,513,987.91 and for change orders not
the builder's work for Phases I and II, and the
included in progress billings amounting to
Car Parking Structure (Carpark) of the EDSA
P6,201,278.50. The Arbitral Tribunal correctly
Plaza Project (Project) in Mandaluyong City,
ruled that BFC had complied with the twin
embodied in the parties' contract documents.
requirements imposed by Article 1724 of the
SLPI was the project owner and BFC was the
Civil Code. Article 1724 governs the recovery of
trade contractor. BFC sued SLPI and the
costs for any additional work because of a
members of the latter's board of directors
subsequent change in the original plans. The
(Alfredo C. Ramos, Rufo B. Colayco, Antonio
underlying purpose of the provision is to prevent
B. Olbes, Gerardo O. Lanuza Jr., Maximo G.
unnecessary litigation for additional costs
Licauco III and Benjamin C. Ramos) for the
incurred by reason of additions or changes in the
collection of P228,630,807.80. The case was
original plan. The provision was undoubtedly
docketed as Civil Case No. 63400 in the
adopted to serve as a safeguard or as a
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (Branch 157).
substantive condition precedent to recovery. As
The proceedings before the trial court was
such, added costs can only be allowed upon: (a)
stayed by this court, as affirmed by the Supreme
the written authority from the developer or
Court, until termination of an arbitration
project owner ordering or allowing the changes
proceeding as required in their contract.
in work; and (b) upon written agreement of the
BFC filed a request for arbitration with the parties on the increase in price or cost due to the
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission change in work or design modification.
(CIAC), but the same was eventually dismissed, Compliance with the requisites is a condition
without prejudice, on the ground that the precedent for recovery; the absence of one
arbitration between BFC and SLPI must be requisite bars the claim for additional costs.
undertaken in accordance with Republic Act No. Notably, neither the authority for the changes
876. Subsequently, the trial court revived the made nor the additional price to be paid therefor
case and directed the parties to proceed with the may be proved by any evidence other than the
arbitration proceeding in accordance with written authority and agreement as above-stated.
R.A. No. 876. Engr. Eliseo Evangelista, Ms.
Q: On November 2019, Rolly Corp undertook a
Alicia Tiongson and Atty. Mario Eugenio Lim
structure for a stipulated price of Php 14 million
were tasked to resolve the controversy as
in comformity of the plans agreed upon with the
members of the Arbitral Tribunal.
land owner Ulysses. On February 2020, Rolly
Issue: WON the court of appeals gravely erred Corp demand an increase in the price on
when it denied the claims of bfc for variation account of the higher cost of labor or materials.
works it was compelled to perform upon the Can Rolly deman a n amount higher than what is
instructions of SLPI. stipulated and agreed upon in the contract?