Suarez v. Crisanto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiff, a contractor, entered into two building contracts with the defendant, an owner, for the construction of five buildings (accesorias). The buildings were completed and turned over on March 1, 1905, with the defendant protesting non-compliance. Procedural History: The case involved disputes over the contract price for the fifth building, the thickness of partitions, the quality of wood used for balconies, the cost of architect's plans, alleged overpayment by the defendant, and a claim for liquidated damages due to delayed completion. The court below rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision of the lower court.
Issue(s)
Whether the contract price for the fifth building was 1,450 pesos or 1,500 pesos. Whether the partitions were to be of one or two thicknesses. Whether the defendant is liable for the cost of reconstructing balconies with better quality wood. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement for the architect's plans. Whether the court erred in its computation of payments made by the defendant. Whether the defendant is entitled to liquidated damages for the delay in completing the first contract. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the awarded sum.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below is modified. The plaintiff is to recover from the defendant the sum of 1,185.30 pesos, Philippine currency, with interest at 6% per annum from September 12, 1905. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the contract price for the fifth building: The Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the contract price was 1,500 pesos. While the contract initially stated 1,500 pesos with a note for 1,450 pesos, the plaintiff testified that the price was mutually agreed to be 1,500 pesos after signing, and the figures were written by the defendant. The defendant's initial testimony was equivocal, and the finding of the lower court was not manifestly against the weight of the evidence, thus it could not be disturbed. On the thickness of partitions: The Court upheld the lower court's finding that the partitions were to be of one thickness as per the contract. The defendant's claim that the words "one thickness" were interlined without proper notation was not sufficiently proven. The plaintiff's testimony that these words were present when the contract was signed was supported by evidence and sustained the lower court's finding. On the reconstruction of balconies: The Court sustained the lower court's ruling that the defendant was liable for the cost of reconstructing the balconies with better quality wood. The defendant's claim that he relied on the plaintiff due to his lack of knowledge about wood classes and that the original wood was rotten was not supported by evidence. The evidence supported the plaintiff's claim for extra work. On the cost of architect's plans: The Court maintained the lower court's decision in favor of the plaintiff regarding the architect's plans. The contract did not stipulate that the plaintiff would furnish the plans, and the plaintiff denied such an agreement. Evidence showed it was customary for the owner to pay for plans without a special agreement, thus the plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement. On the computation of payments: The Court noted that the documentary evidence introduced by the defendant indicated that the court allowed him more than 100 pesos in excess of the payments shown by such evidence. This implies a correction or adjustment in the final award. On liquidated damages for delay: The Court ruled that the defendant was not entitled to liquidated damages. The ordering of additional work by the defendant, without a new agreement on completion time, constituted a waiver of the original contract's time for performance clause. The second contract for a fifth building also served as a modification and extension of the original contract, rendering the time clause inapplicable to the subsequently ordered work. On the award of interest: The Court found the allowance of interest for six months prior to the judgment to be erroneous. The plaintiff was only entitled to recover interest from the commencement of the action. Therefore, the judgment was modified to award interest from September 12, 1905, the date of commencement of the action.
Main Doctrine
The ordering of additional work by the owner, without agreement on an extended completion time, constitutes a waiver of the original contract's time for performance clause. Furthermore, interest on a judgment award can only be recovered from the commencement of the action, not for a period prior to it.