FILINVEST VS PACIFIC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals dated 27 May 1999 affirming the
dismissal by the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 65,[2] of the complaint for damages filed by Filinvest Land, Inc.
(Filinvest) against herein private respondents Pacific Equipment Corporation (Pecorp) and Philippine American General
Insurance Company.

FACTS:

On 26 April 1978, Filinvest Land, Inc., a corporation engaged in the development and sale of residential subdivisions,
awarded to defendant Pacific Equipment Corporation the development of its residential subdivisions consisting of two (2)
parcels of land located at Payatas, Quezon City, the terms and conditions of which are contained in an Agreement. To
guarantee its faithful compliance and pursuant to the agreement, defendant Pacific posted two (2) Surety Bonds in favor of
plaintiff which were issued by defendant Philippine American General Insurance.

Notwithstanding three extensions granted by plaintiff to defendant Pacific, the latter failed to finish the contracted works.
On 16 October 1979, plaintiff wrote defendant Pacific advising the latter of its intention to take over the project and to hold
said defendant liable for all damages which it had incurred and will incur to finish the project.

On 26 October 1979, plaintiff submitted its claim against defendant Philamgen under its performance and guarantee bond
but Philamgen refused to acknowledge its liability for the simple reason that its principal, defendant Pacific, refused to
acknowledge liability.

In defense, defendant Pacific claims that its failure to finish the contracted work was due to severe weather and the fact that
several items of finished work and change order which plaintiff refused to accept and pay for caused the disruption of work.
Since the contractual relation between plaintiff and defendant Pacific created a reciprocal obligation, the failure of the
plaintiff to pay its progressing bills estops it from demanding fulfillment of what is incumbent upon defendant Pacific. The
acquiescence by plaintiff in granting three extensions to defendant Pacific is likewise a waiver of the formers right
to claim any damages for the delay. Further, the unilateral and voluntary action of plaintiff in preventing defendant Pacific
from completing the work has relieved the latter from the obligation of completing the same.

Moreover, Philamgen contends that the various amendments made on the principal contract and the deviations in the
implementation were done without their written consent which automatically released them from any liability within the
purview and contemplation of the coverage of the surety bonds it has issued.

On July 7, 1981, Upon agreement of the parties to appoint a commissioner to assist the court in resolving the issues
confronting the parties, to conduct an ocular inspection and to determine the amount of work accomplished by the defendant
Pacific and the amount of work done by plaintiff to complete the project.

On 28 November 1984, the Court received the findings made by the Court Commissioner. In arriving at his findings, the
Commissioner used the contract billings and payments made by both parties as there was no proper procedure followed in
terminating the contract, lack of inventory of work accomplished, absence of appropriate record of work progress (logbook)
and inadequate documentation and system of construction management.

Based on the billings of defendant Pacific amounted to P11,788,282.40 with the exception of the last billing (which was not
acted upon or processed by plaintiff) in the amount of P844,396.42. The total amount of work left to be accomplished by
plaintiff was based on the original contract amount less value of work accomplished by defendant Pacific in the amount of
P681,717.58 (12,470,000-11,788,282.42).

As regards the alleged repairs made by plaintiff on the construction deficiencies, the Court Commissioner found no
sufficient basis to justify the same. On the other hand, he found the additional work done by defendant Pacific in the
amount of P477,000.00 to be in order.

On 01 April 1985, plaintiff filed its objections to the Commissioners Resolution on the following grounds:
 a) Failure of the commissioner to conduct a joint survey which according to the latter is indispensable to arrive at an
equitable and fair resolution of the issues between the parties;
b) The cost estimates of the commissioner were based on pure conjectures and contrary to the evidence; and,
c) The commissioner made conclusions of law which were beyond his assignment or capabilities.

In its comment, defendant Pacific alleged that the failure to conduct joint survey was due to plaintiffs refusal to cooperate.
In fact, it was defendant Pacific who initiated the idea of conducting a joint survey and inventory dating back 27
November 1983. And even assuming that a joint survey were conducted, it would have been an exercise in futility because
all physical traces of the actual conditions then obtaining at the time relevant to the case had already been obliterated by
plaintiff.

THE TRIAL COURT RULED:

The trial court dismissed Filinvests complaint as well as Pecorps counterclaim predicated from the commissioners report
and held that the appointment of a Commissioner was a joint undertaking among the parties. The findings of facts of the
Commissioner should therefore not only be conclusive but final among the parties. The court therefore agrees with the
commissioners findings with respect to

1. Cost to repair deficiency or defect P532,324.02

The unpaid balance due defendant therefore is P1,939,191.67. To this amount should be added additional work performed
by defendant at plaintiffs instance in the sum of P475,000.00. And from this total of P2,414,191.67 should be deducted the
sum of P532,324.01 which is the cost to repair the deficiency or defect in the work done by defendant. The commissioner
arrived at the figure of P532,324.01 by getting the average between plaintiffs claim of P758,080.37 and defendants
allegation of P306,567.67. The amount due to defendant per the commissioners report is therefore P1,881,867.66.

Although the said amount of P1,881,867.66 would be owing to defendant Pacific, the fact remains that said defendant was
in delay since April 25, 1979. The third extension agreement of September 15, 1979 is very clear in this regard. The pertinent
paragraphs read:

a) You will complete all the unfinished works not later than Oct. 15, 1979. It is agreed and understood that this date shall
DEFINITELY be the LAST and FINAL extension & there will be no further extension for any cause whatsoever.

b) We are willing to waive all penalties for delay which have accrued since April 25, 1979 provided that you are able to
finish all the items of the contracted works as per revised CPM; otherwise you shall continue to be liable to pay the penalty
up to the time that all the contracted works shall have been actually finished, in addition to other damages which we may
suffer by reason of the delays incurred.

Therefore the defendant became liable for delay when it did not finish the project on the date agreed on October 15, 1979.
However the court, finds the claim of P3,990,000.00 in the form of penalty by reason of delay (P15,000.00/day from
April 25, 1979 to Jan. 15, 1980) to be excessive. A forfeiture of the amount due defendant from plaintiff appears to be a
reasonable penalty for the delay in finishing the project considering the amount of work already performed and the fact that
plaintiff consented to three prior extensions.

The foregoing considered, this case is dismissed. The counterclaim is likewise dismissed. No Cost.

The Court of Appeals, finding no reversible error in the appealed decision, affirmed the same.
They likewise agree with the trial court that a penalty interest of P15,000.00 per day of delay as liquidated
damages or P3,990,000.00 (representing 32% penalty of the P12,470,000.00 contract price) is unconscionable
considering that the construction was already not far from completion. Penalty interests are in the nature of
liquidated damages and may be equitably reduced by the courts if they are iniquitous or unconscionable. The
judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied
with by the debtor. Even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced by the courts if it is
iniquitous or unconscionable (Art. 1229, New Civil Code). Moreover, plaintiffs right to indemnity due to
defendants delay has been cancelled by its obligations to the latter consisting of unpaid works.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the liquidated damages agreed upon by the parties should be reduced considering that: (a) time
is of the essence of the contract; (b) the liquidated damages was fixed by the parties to serve not only as penalty
in case Pecorp fails to fulfill its obligation on time, but also as indemnity for actual and anticipated damages
which Filinvest may suffer by reason of such failure; and (c) the total liquidated damages sought is only 32% of
the total contract price, and the same was freely and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties.

HELD.

(a) Based on PACIFIC billings and the payments made by Filinvest, the balance of work to be accomplished by
Pecorp amounts to P681,717.58 representing 5.47% of the contract work. This means to say that Pecorp, at the
time of the termination of its contract, accomplished 94.53% of the contract work;
(b) The unpaid balance of work done by Pecorp amounts to P1,939,191.67;
(c) The additional work/change order due Pecorp amounts to P475,000.00;
(d) The cost to repair deficiency or defect, which is for the account of Pecorp, is P532,324.02; and
(e) The total amount due Pecorp is P1,881,867.66.

Filinvest argues that the penalty should be respected as it was a product of mutual agreement and it represents
only 32% of the P12,470,000.00 contract price, thus, not shocking and unconscionable under the circumstances.
Moreover, the penalty was fixed to provide for actual or anticipated liquidated damages and not simply to
ensure compliance with the terms of the contract.

The SC did not question that the penalty of P15,000.00 per day of delay was mutually agreed upon by the
parties and that the same is sanctioned by law. A penal clause is an accessory undertaking to assume greater
liability in case of breach.[10] It is attached to an obligation in order to insure performance[11] and has a double
function: (1) to provide for liquidated damages, and (2) to strengthen the coercive force of the obligation by the
threat of greater responsibility in the event of breach.[12] Article 1226 of the Civil Code states: In obligations
with a penal clause, the penalty shall substitute the indemnity for damages and the payment of interests
in case of noncompliance, if there is no stipulation to the contrary. Nevertheless, damages shall be paid if
the obligor refuses to pay the penalty or is guilty of fraud in the fulfillment of the obligation.

The penalty may be enforced only when it is demandable in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

As a general rule, courts are not at liberty to ignore the freedom of the parties to agree on such terms and
conditions as long as they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.
However, courts may equitably reduce a stipulated penalty in the contract in two instances: (1) if the principal
obligation has been partly or irregularly complied; and (2) even if there has been no compliance if the penalty is
iniquitous or unconscionable in accordance with Article 1229 of the Civil Code which provides: The judge
shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied
with by the debtor. Even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced by the courts
if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.

The SC agreed the trial court and court of appeals ruling, that the penalty was excessive and unconscionable,
and accordingly reduced it to P1,881,867.66 considering the amount of work already performed and the fact
that [Filinvest] consented to three (3) prior extensions.

This Court finds no fault in the cost estimates of the court-appointed commissioner.
Moreover, The SC agrees with the Court of Appeals that the application of Article 1229 is essentially addressed
to the sound discretion of the court.[15] As it is settled that the project was already 94.53% complete and that
Filinvest did agree to extend the period for completion of the project, which extensions Filinvest included in
computing the amount of the penalty, the reduction thereof is clearly warranted.

The SC pointed out In Ligutan v. Court of Appeals, that the question of whether a penalty is reasonable or
iniquitous can be partly subjective and partly objective as its resolution would depend on such factors as, but
not necessarily confined to, the type, extent and purpose of the penalty, the nature of the obligation, the mode of
breach and its consequences, the supervening realities, the standing and relationship of the parties, and the like,
the application of which, by and large, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.

The FILINVEST argues, that the penalty clause was agreed upon to answer for delay in the completion of the
project considering that time is of the essence, the parties thus clearly contemplated the payment of accumulated
liquidated damages despite, and precisely because of, partial performance.

The SC cited the CA ruling, that that the penalty should be reduced because there was partial compliance and
the penalty was unconscionable. Otherwise stated, the Court of Appeals affirmed the reduction of the penalty
not simply because there was partial compliance per se on the part of Pecorp with what was incumbent upon it
but, more fundamentally, because it deemed the penalty unconscionable in the light of Pecorps 94.53%
completion rate.
.[23]

The SC manifested that there has been substantial compliance in good faith on the part of Pecorp which renders
unconscionable the application of the full force of the penalty especially if we consider that in 1979 the amount
of P15,000.00 as penalty for delay per day was quite steep indeed. Nothing in the records suggests that Pecorps
delay in the performance of 5.47% of the contract was due to it having acted negligently or in bad faith. Finally,
we factor in the fact that Filinvest is not free of blame either as it likewise failed to do that which was incumbent
upon it, i.e., it failed to pay Pecorp for work actually performed by the latter in the total amount of P1,881,867.66.
Thus, all things considered, we find no reversible error in the Court of Appeals exercise of discretion in the instant
case.

Before we write finis to this legal contest that had spanned across two and a half decades, we take note of Pecorps
own grievance. From its Comment and Memorandum, Pecorp, likewise, seeks affirmative relief from this Court
by praying that not only should the instant case be dismissed for lack of merit, but that Filinvest should likewise
be made to pay what the Court Commissioner found was due defendant in the total amount of P2,976,663.65 plus
12% interest from 1979 until full payment thereof plus attorneys fees.[24] Pecorp, however, cannot recover that
which it seeks as we had already denied, in a Resolution dated 21 June 2000, its own petition for review of the
27 May 1999 decision of the Court of Appeals. Thus, as far as Pecorp is concerned, the ruling of the Court of
Appeals has already attained finality and can no longer be disturbed.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 27 May 1999 is AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.