The Supreme Court has affirmed that unilateral rescission of a contract is subject to judicial review. This means that one party cannot simply declare a contract void without a court’s confirmation, ensuring fairness and protecting the rights of both parties involved. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to contractual agreements and the legal processes required for their termination.
Concrete Quarrel: When a Construction Contract Hits Rock Bottom
This case, Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Mars Construction Enterprises, Inc., revolves around a subcontract agreement for the supply of aggregates for the Philphos Project. Mars Construction claimed that PNCC breached their agreement by refusing to accept a delivery of 17,000 cubic meters of washed 1-1/2″ gravel. PNCC, on the other hand, argued that it was not obligated to accept the delivery because the project’s aggregate requirements had already been met and Mars Construction had previously defaulted on its contractual obligations. The central legal question is whether PNCC’s refusal to accept the delivery constituted a breach of contract, and whether PNCC’s unilateral rescission of the contract was valid.
The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on the interpretation of the contract’s stipulations. According to Article 1374 of the Civil Code: “The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.” The Court noted that the “Scope of Services” provision in Amendment 2 stipulated the delivery of 70,000 cubic meters of concrete aggregates, with approximately 35,000 cubic meters specifically for washed 1.5-inch gravel. The Court interpreted these figures not as mere estimates but as the minimum quantities that Mars Construction was obligated to deliver and PNCC was bound to accept. This interpretation aligns with Article 1378 of the Civil Code, which states that doubts in contracts should be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests. This ensured both parties knew their obligations, promoting fairness.
PNCC argued that Project Director H.R. Taylor’s letter of May 17, 1984, which advised Mars Construction that no further deliveries would be accepted, justified their refusal. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument. The Court emphasized that the contract did not authorize PNCC to unilaterally limit the quantity of aggregates through such advice. The Court also cited the principle that “the act of treating a contract as cancelled or rescinded on account of infractions by the other contracting party is always provisional,” as stated in University of the Philippines v. De los Angeles, 35 SCRA 102 (1970). PNCC’s attempt to unilaterally amend the contract was deemed invalid.
Furthermore, the Court addressed PNCC’s claim that Mars Construction was already in default, justifying the refusal of delivery. The contract provided a specific remedy for delays or failures in delivery: PNCC could procure aggregates from other sources and charge the incremental cost to Mars Construction. The records showed that PNCC had indeed purchased aggregates from other suppliers and charged Mars Construction for the additional expenses, which Mars willingly paid. This conduct was interpreted as a waiver of PNCC’s right to rescind the contract based on the alleged defaults. Since PNCC was already compensated for the delays, the Court found that these defaults did not constitute a substantial breach that would justify rescission.
In line with Power Commercial and Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 597 (1997), because the petitioner was already compensated for respondent’s default, such defaults cannot be considered as a substantial breach that justified the rescission of the Contract and the refusal to accept the questioned delivery.
In essence, the Supreme Court upheld the principle that contractual obligations must be fulfilled in good faith. The Court emphasized that parties cannot unilaterally alter or rescind contracts without proper justification and due process. PNCC’s attempt to avoid accepting the delivery of aggregates was deemed a breach of contract, entitling Mars Construction to damages. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts. It held PNCC liable for the unrealized profit. Lost profits are recoverable. This underscores the importance of honoring contractual commitments and seeking judicial remedies when disputes arise.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether PNCC’s refusal to accept a delivery of aggregates from Mars Construction constituted a breach of their subcontract agreement. The Court had to determine if PNCC’s unilateral rescission was valid. |
| What did the contract stipulate about the quantity of aggregates? | The contract stipulated that Mars Construction would supply approximately 70,000 cubic meters of concrete aggregates, including approximately 35,000 cubic meters of washed 1.5-inch gravel. The court interpreted these numbers as minimum requirements. |
| Can a party unilaterally rescind a contract in the Philippines? | No, unilateral rescission is provisional and subject to judicial determination. A court must decide if the rescission was proper, giving the other party a chance to be heard. |
| What happens if a party defaults on a contract? | The other party can pursue remedies specified in the contract or seek legal action for damages. However, if the contract provides a specific remedy, the other party waives its right to rescind and is thus estopped from rescinding the Contract by reason of such short delivery. |
| How did the Court interpret the advice given by PNCC regarding deliveries? | The Court found that PNCC’s advice to limit deliveries was not a valid basis for refusing to accept the aggregates. The contract did not authorize PNCC to unilaterally change the agreed-upon quantities. |
| What does “lucrum cessans” mean in this case? | Lucrum cessans refers to the unrealized profits that Mars Construction suffered as a result of PNCC’s breach of contract. The Court awarded damages to compensate for these lost profits. |
| Why did the Court uphold the award of damages to Mars Construction? | The Court upheld the award of damages because PNCC breached the contract by refusing to accept the delivery of aggregates. The breach caused Mars Construction to lose profits it would have otherwise earned. |
| What is the significance of good faith in contractual relations? | Good faith is a fundamental principle in contract law, requiring parties to act honestly and fairly in their dealings. The Court emphasized that parties must fulfill their contractual obligations in good faith. |
In summary, this case emphasizes the binding nature of contracts and the limitations on unilateral rescission under Philippine law. It serves as a reminder that parties must adhere to the terms of their agreements and seek judicial remedies when disputes arise, upholding the principles of fairness and reciprocity in contractual relationships.
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: Philippine National Construction Corporation vs. Mars Construction Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 133909, February 15, 2000
Leave a Reply