This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| The existence of the layers of concrete slabs and the extra soft condition of the soil was not easily determinable upon site inspection. In fact, these were not included in the Construction Agreement or in the Minutes of the Pre-Bid Conferences.[52] Petitioner would have considered in its bid plan and proposal the attendant time and costs the measures required to address these conditions had it known about them from the beginning.[53] In Advanced Foundation Construction Systems Corporation v. New World Properties and Ventures, Inc.,[54] we deferred to the expert opinion of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission that in practice, removal of underground obstructions is a "major item of work" that needs to be included in the contractor's scope of work. It cannot be understood as being merely subsumed under the general heading "miscellaneous."[55] | |||||
|
2012-10-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In other words, petitioner never sent notice to respondent regarding a request for extension of time to finish the work despite its claim of the existence of circumstances fairly entitling it to an extension of the contract period. Assuming that the reasons for valid extension indeed exist, still, petitioner should bear the consequences for the delay as it deprived respondent of its right to determine the length of extension to be given to it and, consequently, to adjust the period to finish the extra work.[48] | |||||
|
2007-03-02 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| This article is part of the chapter of the Civil Code on Human Relations, the provisions of which were formulated as "basic principles to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of the social order, x x x designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience, x x x guides human conduct [that] should run as golden threads through society to the end that law may approach its supreme ideal which is the sway and dominance of justice."[43] The rules thereon apply equally well to the Government.[44] Since respondent had rendered services to the full satisfaction and acceptance by petitioner, then the former should be compensated for them. To allow petitioner to acquire the finished project at no cost would undoubtedly constitute unjust enrichment for the petitioner to the prejudice of respondent. Such unjust enrichment is not allowed by law. | |||||