Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

H.L. CARLOS CONSTRUCTION v. MARINA PROPERTIES CORPORATION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 174387 2015-12-09	BF CORPORATION v. WERDENBERG INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION JARDELEZA, J.
In H.L. Carlos Construction, Inc. v. Marina Properties Corporation,[124] we held that in the construction industry, the 10 % retention money is a portion of the contract price automatically deducted from the contractor's billings, as security for the execution of corrective work—if any—becomes necessary.[125] Section 14 of the Construction Agreement provides the conditions for the release of the 10% retention fee to wit:14. FINAL PAYMENT - Final payment of (10%) Ten percent of the contract price retained shall be made within thirty (30) days from the date of issuance by the OWNER of the letter of acceptance provided that the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the OWNER a sworn statement showing that all the taxes due from it as a result of the eontract and all obligation for materials used and labor employed, have been paid for and that no more outstanding claims for any obligations incurred by the CONTRACTOR as a result of the contract exist; provided, further, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to waive the rights of the OWNER, which it hereby [reserves], to reject the whole or any portion of the aforesaid works should the same be found to have been constructed in violation of the plans and specifications or any of the conditions or documents of this contract.[126] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 170732 2012-10-11	ATLANTIC ERECTORS v. CA PERALTA, J.
Based on the above provisions of law, the parties to a contract are allowed to stipulate on liquidated damages to be paid in case of breach. It is attached to an obligation in order to ensure performance 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.[40] The amount agreed upon answers for damages suffered by the owner due to delays in the completion of the project.[41] As a pre-condition to such award, however, there must be proof of the fact of delay in the performance of the obligation.[42]
	GR No. 185368 2012-10-11	ARTHUR F. MENCHAVEZ v. MARLYN M. BERMUDEZ VELASCO JR., J.
To allow petitioner to recover under the terms of the compromise agreement and to further seek enforcement of the original loan transaction would constitute unjust enrichment. The compromise agreement was entered into precisely to extinguish the obligation under the loan transaction, not to create two sources of obligation for respondent. There is unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code when (1) a person is unjustly benefited; and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.[20] Since respondent only entered into the compromise agreement to commit to payment of the original loan, petitioner cannot separate the two and seek payment of both, especially as he has already recovered the amount of the original loan.
	GR NO. 146667 2007-01-23	JOHN F. MCLEOD v. NLRC CARPIO, J.
Personal liability of corporate directors, trustees or officers attaches only when (1) they assent to a patently unlawful act of the corporation, or when they are guilty of bad faith or gross negligence in directing its affairs, or when there is a conflict of interest resulting in damages to the corporation, its stockholders or other persons; (2) they consent to the issuance of watered down stocks or when, having knowledge of such issuance, do not forthwith file with the corporate secretary their written objection; (3) they agree to hold themselves personally and solidarily liable with the corporation; or (4) they are made by specific provision of law personally answerable for their corporate action.[57]
	GR NO. 138980 2005-09-20	FILINVEST LAND v. CA
There is no 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:Art. 1226. 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.