This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-10-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As no extension was validly agreed upon and in view of the established fact that petitioner failed to complete the works and deliver the housing units within the stipulated period, petitioner's liability for liquidated damages arose, which is 1/10 of 1% of the contract price per calendar day of delay to a maximum amount of 10% of the contract price. Petitioner failed to meet its new deadline which was April 7, 1997. It even proposed that it be allowed to complete the works until November 15, 1997, way beyond the original as well as the extended contract period. Undoubtedly, petitioner may be held to answer for liquidated damages in its maximum amount which is 10% of the contract price. While we have reduced the amount of liquidated damages in some cases because of partial fulfillment of the contract and/or the amount is unconscionable, we do not find the same to be applicable in this case.[52] Per the CIAC findings, as of the last certified billing, petitioner's percentage accomplishment was only 62.57%. Hence, we apply the general rule not to ignore the freedom of the parties to agree on such terms and conditions as they see fit as long as they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.[53] Thus, we find no reason to disturb the CA conclusion. | |||||