Uy v PEA P55,680,492.38 for equipment rentals on standby; P2,275,721.

00
July 7, 2010 | Nachura, J. | Unjust Enrichment for the cost of idle manpower; and P6,050,165.05 for the
construction of the nursery shade net area; plus interest at 6%
PETITIONER: Elpidio S. Uy, doing business under the nae of Edison per annum to be computed from the date of the filing of the
Development & Construction complaint until finality of this Decision and 12% per annum
RESPONDENTS: Public Estates Authority thereafter until full payment. Respondent PEA is further ordered to
pay petitioner Uy 10% of the total award as attorney's fees.
SUMMARY: Uy filed a Motion for Partial Consideration asking for a
2. Uy argues:
recomputation of damages due him for the standby equipment cost and a
a. That the SC erred in the computation of damages due him for the
reimbursement for costs incurred in the mobilization of water trucks and for standby equipment cost
additional hauling distance of topsoil, which was given a written consent by b. That he should be reimbursed for costs incurred for additional
PEA, and that it is indispensable to completing the project. Without such hauling distance of topsoil, which was given a written consent by
assurance of reimbursement, Uy would not have taken such action. WoN SC PEA, and that it is indispensable to completing the project.
erred in computing the standby equipment cost – YES, remanded to CIAC to use Without such assurance of reimbursement, Uy would not have
the new formula. WoN Uy should be reimbursed for the mobilization of water taken such action.
c. That he be allowed to recover the costs he incurred for the
trucks and additional hauling distance of topsoil – NO. A written approval of
mobilization of water trucks
PEA's general manager was indispensable before the claim for additional cost 3. PEA argues:
can be granted. In this case, the additional costs were incurred without the a. The factual findings and conclusions of the Construction Industry
written approval of PEA. The denial of Uy's claims was, therefore, appropriate. Arbitration Commission are already final and executory
The claim of Uy was premised mainly on the principle of unjust enrichment. The b. The CIAC arbitral award had already been implemented.
Court here held that the principle of unjust enrichment cannot be validly invoked 4. Uy objects to the factor rate used in the computation of the award for
by a party who, through his own act or omission, took the risk of being denied standby equipment costs. He points out that the actual number of equipment
payment for additional costs by not giving the other party prior notice of such deployed and which remained on standby, occasioned by the delay in
costs and/or by not securing their written consent thereto, as required by law and delivery of work areas, has not been considered in the computation. The
their contract. Association of Carriers and Equipment Lessors (ACEL) rate or the factor
rate used was only the total average rate, without regard to the actual
DOCTRINE: The principle of unjust enrichment cannot be validly invoked by a number of equipment deployed. He, therefore, insists that an increase in the
party who, through his own act or omission, took the risk of being denied award is in order.
payment for additional costs by not giving the other party prior notice of such
costs and/or by not securing their written consent thereto, as required by law and
their contract. ISSUE/s:
1. WoN the SC erred in computing the standby equipment cost – YES
2. WoN Uy should be reimbursed for the costs for additional hauling
FACTS: distance of topsoil and mobilization of water truck – NO (torts issue)
1. Elpidio S. Uy filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration and PEA for a
Motion for Reconsideration for the decision of the SC where: RULING: WHEREFORE, Uy's Motion for Partial Reconsideration is PARTLY
a. WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED . The GRANTED. PEA's Motion for Reconsideration, on the other hand, is DENIED with
assailed Joint Decision and Joint Resolution of the Court of FINALITY. The assailed Decision dated June 8, 2009 is AFFIRMED with
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 59308 and 59849 are AFFIRMED MODIFICATION as to the award of standby equipment cost. The case is hereby
with MODIFICATIONS. Respondent Public Estates Authority REMANDED to the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission solely for the
is ordered to pay Elpidio S. Uy, doing business under the name purpose of computing the exact amount of standby equipment cost pursuant to the
and style Edison Development and Construction, formula herein specified. The CIAC is DIRECTED to compute the award and effect
payment thereof within thirty (30) days from receipt of the records of this case. respondent Uy which were not granted by the CIAC in its
questioned decision, the merits of which were not submitted to us
for determination in the instant petition.
RATIO: 7. Thus, the decision in the earlier case will not bar the grant of additional
1. The equipment remained in the project site on the days that EDC was
award to Uy.
waiting for the turnover of additional work areas. The actual number of
equipment mobilized should be included in computing the award for
standby equipment cost. The award must, therefore, be modified using the
following formula:
a. Actual period of delay (18.2 months) x average rate per ACEL x
number of equipment
2. However, Uy’s claim of P71,009,557.95 is unacceptable because not all
equaipment were operational as several were under repair. The case should
be remanded to CIAC for the computation of the award based on the
formula.
3. A written approval of PEA's general manager was indispensable before
the claim for additional cost can be granted. In this case, the additional
costs were incurred without the written approval of PEA. The denial of
Uy's claims was, therefore, appropriate.
4. The claim of Uy was premised mainly on the principle of unjust
enrichment. The Court here held that the principle of unjust
enrichment cannot be validly invoked by a party who, through his own
act or omission, took the risk of being denied payment for additional
costs by not giving the other party prior notice of such costs and/or by
not securing their written consent thereto, as required by law and their
contract.
5. Issue on lifting the injunction issued by CIAC (irrelevant): There is only
one cause of action running through Uy's undertakings — the violation of
his alleged right under the Landscaping and Construction Agreement.
Therefore, the landscaping agreement is indispensable in the prosecution of
his claims in both CIAC Cases No. 02-2000 and No. 03-2001. We reiterate
that a party, either by varying the form or action or by bringing forward in a
second case additional parties or arguments, cannot escape the effects of res
judicata when the facts remain the same, at least where such new parties or
matter could have been impleaded or pleaded in the prior action.
6. On the PEA’s argument that the case transgresses the principle of res
judicata because it had already been decided in the previous case (the
original one before they filed the MR in this case). The Court said that this
Court was very explicit in its declaration that its Decision was independent
of, and without prejudice to, the appeal filed by Uy.
a. Our decision in this case does not affect the other claims of