Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 385 views

    Up VS Dizon

    Uploaded by

    jimart10
    1) Stern Builders Corporation entered into a construction contract with the University of the Philippines (UP) in 1990 to build extensions and renovate buildings on the UP campus. 2) Stern Builders submitted three progress billings for work completed, but UP only paid two, withholding payment of the third billing for P273,729.47. 3) Stern Builders sued UP to collect the unpaid billing and damages. The RTC initially ruled in Stern Builders' favor and awarded moral damages, but the RTC's grant of moral damages was overturned as corporations cannot experience physical or mental suffering and are therefore not eligible for moral damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Up VS Dizon

    Uploaded by

    jimart10
    385 views1 page
    1) Stern Builders Corporation entered into a construction contract with the University of the Philippines (UP) in 1990 to build extensions and renovate buildings on the UP campus. 2) Stern Builders submitted three progress billings for work completed, but UP only paid two, withholding payment of the third billing for P273,729.47. 3) Stern Builders sued UP to collect the unpaid billing and damages. The RTC initially ruled in Stern Builders' favor and awarded moral damages, but the RTC's grant of moral damages was overturned as corporations cannot experience physical or mental suffering and are therefore not eligible for moral damages.

    Original Description:

    cvxcvdsaas

    Original Title

    UP VS DIZON

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Stern Builders Corporation entered into a construction contract with the University of the Philippines (UP) in 1990 to build extensions and renovate buildings on the UP campus. 2) Stern Builders submitted three progress billings for work completed, but UP only paid two, withholding payment of the third billing for P273,729.47. 3) Stern Builders sued UP to collect the unpaid billing and damages. The RTC initially ruled in Stern Builders' favor and awarded moral damages, but the RTC's grant of moral damages was overturned as corporations cannot experience physical or mental suffering and are therefore not eligible for moral damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    385 views1 page

    Up VS Dizon

    Uploaded by

    jimart10
    1) Stern Builders Corporation entered into a construction contract with the University of the Philippines (UP) in 1990 to build extensions and renovate buildings on the UP campus. 2) Stern Builders submitted three progress billings for work completed, but UP only paid two, withholding payment of the third billing for P273,729.47. 3) Stern Builders sued UP to collect the unpaid billing and damages. The RTC initially ruled in Stern Builders' favor and awarded moral damages, but the RTC's grant of moral damages was overturned as corporations cannot experience physical or mental suffering and are therefore not eligible for moral damages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    UP VS DIZON(JUDGE OF RTC)

    F: On August 30, 1990, the UP, through its then President Jose V. Abueva, entered into a General
    Construction Agreement with respondent Stern Builders Corporation (Stern Builders), represented
    by its President and General Manager Servillano dela Cruz, for the construction of the extension
    building and the renovation of the College of Arts and Sciences Building in the campus of the
    University of the Philippines in Los Baos (UPLB).3
    In the course of the implementation of the contract, Stern Builders submitted three progress billings
    corresponding to the work accomplished, but the UP paid only two of the billings. The third billing
    worth P273,729.47 was not paid due to its disallowance by the Commission on Audit (COA). Despite
    the lifting of the disallowance, the UP failed to pay the billing, prompting Stern Builders and dela
    Cruz to sue the UP and its co-respondent officials to collect the unpaid billing and to recover various
    damages.
    After trial, on November 28, 2001, the RTC rendered its decision in favor of the STERN BUILDERS
    awarding, among others, moral damages

    I: WON STERN BUILDERS CORPORATION IS ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGES


    R: the grant of moral damages in that manner contravened the law that permitted the recovery of
    moral damages as the means to assuage "physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
    besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury." 111 The
    contravention of the law was manifest considering that Stern Builders, as an artificial person, was
    incapable of experiencing pain and moral sufferings.112 Assuming that in granting the substantial
    amount of P 10,000,000.00 as moral damages, the RTC might have had in mind that dela Cruz had
    himself suffered mental anguish and anxiety. If that was the case, then the RTC obviously
    disregarded his separate and distinct personality from that of Stern Builders. 113 Moreover, his moral
    and emotional sufferings as the President of Stern Builders were not the sufferings of Stern Builders.
    Lastly, the RTC violated the basic principle that moral damages were not intended to enrich the
    plaintiff at the expense of the defendant, but to restore the plaintiff to his status quo ante as much as
    possible. Taken together, therefore, all these considerations exposed the substantial amount
    of P 10,000,000.00 allowed as moral damages not only to be factually baseless and legally
    indefensible, but also to be unconscionable, inequitable and unreasonable.

    You might also like