Filinvest v. Century Iron Works

G.R. No.
213229
December 9, 2015
FILINVEST ALABANG, INC., vs. CENTURY IRON WORKS, INC.,

Civil Law; Contract; Fixed Lump Sum. In a fixed lump sum contract, the
project owner agrees to pay the contractor a specified amount for
completing a scope of work involving a variety of unspecified items of work
without requiring a cost breakdown. The contractor estimates the project
cost based on the scope of work and schedule and considers probable
errors in measurement and changes in the price of materials. Otherwise
stated, in fixed lump sum contracts, the project owner's liability to the
contractor is generally limited to what is stipulated therein.
If there is a stipulation on additional works to the project covered by
said contract which would entail added liabilities on the part of the project
owner, contractors may recover from project owners additional costs,
provided that there exists: (a) a written authority from the developer or
project owner ordering or allowing the written changes in work; and (b)
written agreement of the parties with regard to the increase in price or cost
due to the change in work or design modification.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
FACTS: Filinvest Alabang, Inc. awarded various contracts to Century Iron
Works, Inc., including a contract for the completion of the metal works
required of Filinvest Festival Supermall supported by the evidence of the
Agreement for Construction executed by both parties.
After the completion of said project, respondent tried to fully settle its
credit with petitioner amounting to P1,392,088.68 broken down as follows:
(a) balance of the retention fee amounting to P40,880.00; (b)
additional deduction of P227,500.00 from the latters total payments; and
(c) the cost of an additional scenic elevator enclosure amounting to
P1,123,708.68.
But despite demands, the latter allegedly withheld payment without
any reasonable ground. This caused respondent to file a case for sum of
money with damages before the RTC of Pasig City.
Petitioner argued that it had to retain the amount of P40,880 and
P227,500 as damages due to the respondents substandard workmanship;
and that the subject contract is lump sum in nature, therefore, it cannot be
made liable for the amount representing the additional scenic elevator
enclosure absent any instruction authorizing the construction of the same.
The RTC granted respondent's claim for the amount of P227,500, but
denied the rest. It ruled that the petitioner is already estopped from
claiming damages due to its issuance of Certificate of Completion and
Acceptance, signifying satisfaction as to the work done. Further, it found
merit on the petitioners averment that the subject contract, being lump
sum in nature, it cannot be made liable for the amount representing the
additional scenic elevator enclosure.
On appeal, the CA ordered the petitioner to pay the amount of
P40,880 and P1,123,708.68 plus interest. The CA held that the subject
contract is not fixed lump sum in nature. Dissatisfied, petitioner moved for
reconsideration, however, denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is liable to pay the amount of

P40,880, P227,500 and P1,123,708.68 to the respondent
HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. The Supreme Court ordered the petitioner to pay

the respondent the entire amount plus interest.
The petitioners issuance of Certificate of Completion and Acceptance
to the respondent estops the former from withholding the amount of
P40,880 and P227,500 due to substandard workmanship.
As to the amount of P1,123,708.68, the petitioner should also pay the
respondent. In a fixed lump sum contract, the project owner agrees to pay
the contractor a specified amount for completing a scope of work involving
a variety of unspecified items of work without requiring a cost breakdown..
Otherwise stated, in fixed lump sum contracts, the project owner's liability
to the contractor is generally limited to what is stipulated therein.
However, Article 1724 of the Civil Code, which governs fixed lump
sum contracts, does not preclude the parties from stipulating on additional
works to the project covered by said contract which would entail added
liabilities on the part of the project owner. Said provision allows contractors
to recover from project owners additional costs in fixed lump sum contracts,
as well as the increase in price for any additional work due to a subsequent
change in the original plans and specifications, provided that there exists:
(a) a written authority from the developer or project owner ordering or
allowing the written changes in work; and (b) written agreement of the
parties with regard to the increase in price or cost due to the change in
work or design modification.
The subject contract clearly is fixed lump sum in nature as the parties
agreed that respondent shall "furnish all materials, labor, equipment,
supervision and all other accessories, fixings and incidentals necessary to
complete the Supply and Installation of Metal Works Requirements" of
petitioner's Filinvest Festival Supermall. Thus, the foregoing shows that: (a)
there was a written authority from petitioner for respondent to proceed
with the construction of the additional scenic elevator enclosure; and ( b)
the parties have a written agreement as to the proper valuation of such
additional works to be made on the project. As the construction of an
additional scenic elevator enclosure was covered by a valid extra work
order to the subject contract, respondent is entitled to recover from
petitioner the cost of the same.

Filinvest v. Century Iron Works

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filinvest v. Century Iron Works

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filinvest v. Century Iron Works

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

FILINVEST ALABANG, INC., vs. CENTURY IRON WORKS, INC.,

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is liable to pay the amount of

HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. The Supreme Court ordered the petitioner to pay

You might also like