In BF Corporation v. Werdenberg International Corporation, the Supreme Court addressed a construction dispute, clarifying how delays are assessed and who bears the responsibility for liquidated damages. The Court determined that both parties shared fault for the project’s delay, adjusting the amount of liquidated damages owed by the contractor. This decision highlights the importance of clear contractual terms, proper documentation of project changes, and the mutual obligations of contractors and owners in construction projects.

Building Blame: Who Pays When Construction Runs Late?

This case arose from a construction agreement between BF Corporation (the contractor) and Werdenberg International Corporation (the owner) for building a meat processing plant and showroom office. The project faced numerous delays, leading to disputes over responsibility and the application of liquidated damages. The original completion date was April 7, 1995, but the building was only turned over on August 15, 1995, with Werdenberg claiming deficiencies. BF Corporation sued for the remaining balance of the contract price, while Werdenberg sought liquidated damages for the delay.

The contractor, BF Corporation, cited several reasons for the delays, including unforeseen concrete slabs, soft soil conditions, revisions to the building plan, and delays in securing the building permit. The owner, Werdenberg, countered that the delays were due to the contractor’s poor workmanship and failure to address issues promptly. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of BF Corporation, finding the delays justifiable and awarding the remaining contract balance. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the decision, holding BF Corporation liable for liquidated damages due to a 70-day delay.

The Supreme Court (SC) partly granted BF Corporation’s petition, modifying the CA’s decision. The SC found that both parties contributed to the delays. The Court acknowledged unforeseen issues such as concrete slabs and soft soil, which were not initially disclosed, causing additional work and time. However, the Court also noted that BF Corporation failed to provide adequate equipment and manpower, contributing to the delays. Citing Article 1172 of the Civil Code, the SC emphasized that liability arising from negligence could be regulated by the courts according to the circumstances.

Art. 1172. Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances.

Regarding the building permit, the SC noted that Werdenberg was responsible for initiating the permit application by securing the Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC). The SC cited a pre-bid conference agreement, stating that Werdenberg would begin the permit process, which BF Corporation would then continue. The Court highlighted the binding nature of contracts, referencing Atlantic Erectors, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, which affirms that contracts constitute the law between the parties as long as they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

Contracts constitute the law between the parties, and they are bound by its stipulations. For as long as they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, the contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient. (Atlantic Erectors, Inc. v. Court of Appeals)

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of change orders and extra works. The CA had given more credence to the testimony of Engr. Antonio Aliño, stating that the change orders and extra works were merely linear activities that did not affect the construction time. However, the Supreme Court noted that Werdenberg had previously granted extensions for these changes, thus contradicting the assertion that they did not cause delay. The Court determined that BF Corporation was entitled to an extension for these works.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court computed the total extensions due to BF Corporation, which amounted to 112 days. This included 21 days for excavation works, 38 days for building permit delays, 40 days for change orders and extra works, 7 days for a boundary dispute, and 6 days for holidays. Consequently, the Court determined that BF Corporation was only in default for 18 days, reducing the liquidated damages owed to Werdenberg. This highlights how critical it is to have proper documentation and mutual agreement on any alterations or extra work done during a construction project.

The Court also upheld Werdenberg’s entitlement to expenses for the repainting job. BF Corporation had acknowledged defects in the painting and attempted to rectify them, but the issues persisted. Werdenberg hired another contractor to complete the repainting, and the Court found BF Corporation liable for these expenses, citing Article 1167 of the Civil Code, which states that if a person fails to do what they are obliged to do, it shall be executed at their cost.

Art. 1167. If a person obliged to do something fails to do it, the same shall be executed at his cost.

The Court also affirmed Werdenberg’s right to a 10% retention fee, citing H.L. Carlos Construction, Inc. v. Marina Properties Corporation, which explains that this retention money serves as security for any necessary corrective work. Because BF Corporation had met the conditions for the release of this fee, the Court upheld Werdenberg’s claim.

The final decision resulted in an award of Php 2,767,290.768 to BF Corporation, after deducting liquidated damages, repainting expenses, and the retention fee. This comprehensive assessment underscores the necessity of clear contractual obligations, diligent documentation, and mutual cooperation in construction projects.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was determining the extent of delays in a construction project and who should bear the responsibility for liquidated damages, considering both the contractor’s and the owner’s actions.
What were the main reasons for the construction delays?	The main reasons included unforeseen concrete slabs, soft soil conditions, delays in securing the building permit, revisions to the building plan, and change orders for additional works.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the issue of liquidated damages?	The Supreme Court ruled that both parties were at fault for the delays. As a result, they adjusted the amount of liquidated damages owed by the contractor, reducing it to reflect the contractor’s actual period of default.
What is an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) and why was it important?	An ECC is a certificate required by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) as a prerequisite for obtaining a building permit. It was important in this case because the owner’s delay in securing the ECC contributed to the overall project delays.
What is a retention fee in the context of construction contracts?	A retention fee is a percentage of the contract price (typically 10%) that is withheld by the owner as security for the execution of corrective work, if any, that becomes necessary during the project.
What does Article 1167 of the Civil Code state regarding obligations?	Article 1167 of the Civil Code states that if a person obliged to do something fails to do it, the same shall be executed at their cost. This was cited in the case to justify holding the contractor liable for the expenses incurred by the owner to rectify defective painting work.
How did change orders and extra works affect the construction timeline?	Change orders and extra works initially caused disputes over whether they contributed to the delay. The Supreme Court determined that because the owner had previously granted extensions for these works, the contractor was entitled to an additional extension, reducing the default period.
What was the final financial outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court awarded Php 2,767,290.768 to BF Corporation, which accounted for the unpaid balance, deductions for liquidated damages, repainting expenses, and the retention fee.

This case serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in construction contracts and the importance of clear communication, accurate documentation, and mutual responsibility. Parties entering into such agreements should ensure that all potential issues are addressed and that any changes are properly documented to avoid disputes over delays and damages.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: BF Corporation vs. Werdenberg International Corporation, G.R. No. 174387, December 09, 2015