Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EPG CONSTRUCTION CO. v. GREGORIO R. VIGILAR

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 183444 2012-02-08	DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. RONALDO E. QUIWA SERENO, J.
These arguments have already been ruled upon, and we find no reason to disturb the rulings. To reiterate, it has been settled in several cases that payment for services done on account of the government, but based on a void contract, cannot be avoided.[23] The government is unjustified in denying what it owes to contractors and in leaving them uncompensated after it has benefitted from the already completed work.[24] Jurisprudence recognizes the principle of quantum meruit. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the contractor's entitlement to compensation has been and is hereby directed.[25]
	GR No. 183444 2012-02-08	DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. RONALDO E. QUIWA SERENO, J.
These arguments have already been ruled upon, and we find no reason to disturb the rulings. To reiterate, it has been settled in several cases that payment for services done on account of the government, but based on a void contract, cannot be avoided.[23] The government is unjustified in denying what it owes to contractors and in leaving them uncompensated after it has benefitted from the already completed work.[24] Jurisprudence recognizes the principle of quantum meruit. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, the contractor's entitlement to compensation has been and is hereby directed.[25]
	GR No. 183444 2011-10-12	DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. RONALDO E. QUIWA SERENO, J.
In EPG Construction Co., et al v Hon. Gregorio R. Vigilar,[30] the Court again refused to stamp with legality DPWH's act of evading the payment of contracts that had been completed, and from which the government had already benefited. The Court held: Although this Court agrees with respondent's postulation that the "implied contracts", which covered the additional constructions, are void, in view of violation of applicable laws, auditing rules and lack of legal requirements, we nonetheless find the instant petition laden with merit and uphold, in the interest of substantial justice, petitioners-contractors' right to be compensated for the "additional constructions" on the public works housing project, applying the principle of quantum meruit.
	GR No. 182967 2011-04-06	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. KANLAON CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES CO. CARPIO, J.
This is a petition for review[1] of the 26 February 2008 Decision[2] and 26 May 2008 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 70205. In its 26 February 2008 Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the 12 December 2000 Decision,[4] as amended by the 22 February 2001 Order,[5] of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 221 (trial court), directing petitioner Philippine National Railways (PNR) to pay respondent Kanlaon Construction Enterprises Co., Inc. (Kanlaon) the remaining balance of the contracts and to release the retention money. In its 26 May 2008 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied PNR's motion for reconsideration.
	GR No. 180388 2011-01-18	GREGORIO R. VIGILAR v. ARNULFO D. AQUINO SERENO, J.
Neither can petitioners escape the obligation to compensate respondent for services rendered and work done by invoking the state's immunity from suit. This Court has long established in Ministerio v. CFI of Cebu, [16] and recently reiterated in Heirs of Pidacan v. ATO, [17] that the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice to a citizen. As this Court enunciated in EPG Construction: [18]