Action
Petition for certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila which sentenced petitioner Bartolome San Diego to pay respondent Eligio Sayson the sum of P5,541.76 with legal interest thereon from September 10, 1956, plus P500 as attorney's fees and costs.
Facts
In the action brought by respondent Eligio Sayson in the Court of First Instance of Manila, he alleged that in November, 1954, he and San Diego entered into an agreement whereby Sayson would furnish labor for the construction of a building at 1200 Arlegui, Farnecio, Quiapo, Manila in accordance with the plans approved by the city engineer, at the price of P15,000; that in the course of the construction the plans approved by the city engineer were modified and changes were made not called for in the approved plans, for which plaintiff had to perform and/or furnish additional labor valued at P6,840.31; and that San Diego has refused to pay this additional sum. In a special defense, San Diego alleged that even granting that additional work had been performed, he may not be held liable for the same in view of the provisions of Article 1724 of the Civil Code.
"Art. 1724. The contractor who undertakes to build a structure or any other work for a stipulated price, in conformity with plans and specifications agreed upon with the landowner can neither withdraw from the contract nor demand increase in the price on account of the higher cost of labor or materials, save when there has been a change in the plans and specifications, provided:
(1) Such change has been authorized by the proprietor in writing; and
(2) The additional price to be paid to the contractor has been determined in writing by both parties.
Aid of Construction
The Court reviewed the legislative history specifically prior laws. Article 1724 of the Civil Code is a modified form of Article 1593 of the Spanish Civil Code, which provides as follows:
"No architect or contractor who, for a lump sum, undertakes the construction of a building, or any other work to be done in accordance with a plan agreed upon with the owner of the ground, may demand an increase of the price, even if the costs of the materials or labor has increased; but he may do so when any change increasing the work is made in the plans, provided the owner has given his consent thereto."
Requiring for a written agreement in Article 1724 of the Civil Code shows the legislature’s intent that mere consent in the Spanish Civil Code is not sufficient and that consent must be expressed in writing to prevent misunderstanding and litigation between parties.
StatCon
“Our duty in this respect is not to dispute the wisdom of the provision; we should only limit ourselves to inquiring into the legislative intent, and once this is determined to make said intent effective.” We find that the provision is applicable to the circumstances surrounding the case at bar, and we are in duty bound to enforce the same. The trial court should have denied the demand for additional costs as directed by the provisions of Article 1724 of the Civil Code.
Ruling
Writ granted in favour of San Diego which reversed the CA decision that no additional costs for the alteration must be required from San Diego since there was no written agreement for such alterations. (Personal Note: bad faith on the part of San Diego; unjust enrichment to the prejudice of the contractor).
Petition for certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila which sentenced petitioner Bartolome San Diego to pay respondent Eligio Sayson the sum of P5,541.76 with legal interest thereon from September 10, 1956, plus P500 as attorney's fees and costs.
Facts
In the action brought by respondent Eligio Sayson in the Court of First Instance of Manila, he alleged that in November, 1954, he and San Diego entered into an agreement whereby Sayson would furnish labor for the construction of a building at 1200 Arlegui, Farnecio, Quiapo, Manila in accordance with the plans approved by the city engineer, at the price of P15,000; that in the course of the construction the plans approved by the city engineer were modified and changes were made not called for in the approved plans, for which plaintiff had to perform and/or furnish additional labor valued at P6,840.31; and that San Diego has refused to pay this additional sum. In a special defense, San Diego alleged that even granting that additional work had been performed, he may not be held liable for the same in view of the provisions of Article 1724 of the Civil Code.
"Art. 1724. The contractor who undertakes to build a structure or any other work for a stipulated price, in conformity with plans and specifications agreed upon with the landowner can neither withdraw from the contract nor demand increase in the price on account of the higher cost of labor or materials, save when there has been a change in the plans and specifications, provided:
(1) Such change has been authorized by the proprietor in writing; and
(2) The additional price to be paid to the contractor has been determined in writing by both parties.
Aid of Construction
The Court reviewed the legislative history specifically prior laws. Article 1724 of the Civil Code is a modified form of Article 1593 of the Spanish Civil Code, which provides as follows:
"No architect or contractor who, for a lump sum, undertakes the construction of a building, or any other work to be done in accordance with a plan agreed upon with the owner of the ground, may demand an increase of the price, even if the costs of the materials or labor has increased; but he may do so when any change increasing the work is made in the plans, provided the owner has given his consent thereto."
Requiring for a written agreement in Article 1724 of the Civil Code shows the legislature’s intent that mere consent in the Spanish Civil Code is not sufficient and that consent must be expressed in writing to prevent misunderstanding and litigation between parties.
StatCon
“Our duty in this respect is not to dispute the wisdom of the provision; we should only limit ourselves to inquiring into the legislative intent, and once this is determined to make said intent effective.” We find that the provision is applicable to the circumstances surrounding the case at bar, and we are in duty bound to enforce the same. The trial court should have denied the demand for additional costs as directed by the provisions of Article 1724 of the Civil Code.
Ruling
Writ granted in favour of San Diego which reversed the CA decision that no additional costs for the alteration must be required from San Diego since there was no written agreement for such alterations. (Personal Note: bad faith on the part of San Diego; unjust enrichment to the prejudice of the contractor).
No comments:
Post a Comment