Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
422, FEBRUARY 13, 2004 603Same; Same; Same; Fortuitous intervention or neglect—the whole occurrence
Event; Definition; Characteristics; A
Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) was humanized and was therefore outside the
vs. ALA Industries Corporation fortuitous event is one that cannot be foreseen ambit of a caso fortuito.
or, though foreseen, is inevitable.—A Same; Same; Same; Same; Burden of
G.R. No. 147349. February 13, 2004. *
fortuitous event is one that cannot be foreseen proving loss rests upon the person invoking
MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT or, though foreseen, is inevitable. It has the it.—Under the rules of evidence, the burden of
AUTHORITY (MIAA), petitioner, vs. ALA following characteristics: “x x x (a) [T]he cause proving that a loss is due to a caso
INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, fortuito rests upon the party invoking it.
respondent. or the failure of the debtor to comply with his Same; Same; Same; Effect of failure to
Civil Law; Contracts; Compromise obligations, must be independent of human abide by the conditions of a compromise
Agreement; Definition.—A compromise will; (b) it must be impossible to foresee the agreement.—Basic is the rule that if a party
agreement is a contract whereby the parties event which constitutes the caso fortuito, or if fails or refuses to abide by a compromise
make reciprocal concessions to resolve their it can be foreseen, it must be impossible to agreement, the other may either enforce it or
differences, thus avoiding litigation or putting avoid; (c) the occurrence must be such as to regard it as rescinded and insist upon the
an end to one that has already commenced. render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his original demand.
Generally favored in law, such agreement is a obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the
bilateral act or transaction that is binding on obligor must be free from any participation in PETITION for review on certiorari of a
the contracting parties and is expressly the aggravation of the injury resulting to the decision of the Court of Appeals.
acknowledged by the Civil Code as a juridical creditor.”
agreement between them. Provided it is not Same; Same; Same; Same; The act-of- The facts are stated in the opinion of the
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public God doctrine requires all human agencies to be Court.
order or public policy, it is immediately excluded from creating the cause of the The Government Corporate
executory. mischief.—The act-of-God doctrine requires Counsel for petitioner.
Same; Same; Same; Such agreement has all human agencies to be excluded from cre-
Buñag, Kapunan, Migallos and
the force of law and is conclusive between the
parties.—Such agreement has the force of law _______________ Perez for respondent.
and is conclusive between the parties. It
transcends its identity as a mere contract
*FIRST DIVISION. PANGANIBAN, J.:
604
binding only upon the parties thereto, as it
becomes a judgment that is subject to
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Foreseeable difficulties that occur during
execution in accordance with the Rules.
ANNOTATED the Christmas season and cause a delay do
Judges therefore have the ministerial and Manila International Airport Authoritynot constitute a fortuitous event. The
mandatory duty to implement and enforce it. (MIAA) vs. ALA Industries Corporation difficulties in processing claims during
Same; Same; Same; Elements; To be ating the cause of the mischief. Such that period are not “acts of God” that
valid, a compromise agreement is merely doctrine cannot be invoked to protect a person would excuse noncompliance with
required by law to complete the following.—To who has failed to take steps to forestall the judicially approved obligations.
be valid, a compromise agreement is merely possible adverse consequences of loss or The Case
required by law, first, to be based on real injury. Since the delay in payment in the Before us is a Petition for Review under
1
claims; second, to be actually agreed upon in present case was partly a result of human
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the
good faith. participation—whether from active
February 28, 2001 Decision of the Court
2
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 59518. ‘ARTICLE I Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA)
The dispositive part of the Decision reads: vs. ALA Industries Corporation
‘SCOPE OF WORK
xxx xxx xxx
_______________
1. ‘1.1The CONTRACTOR shall furnish all ‘ARTICLE IV
1 Rollo, pp. 8-25. materials, labor, tools, plans, equipment
2 Id., pp. 26-38. Penned by Justice Ruben T. Reyes and other services and [perform] all ‘CONTRACT PRICE/MANNER OF PAYMENT
(Thirteenth Division chairman), with the concurrence operations necessary to complete the
of Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. structural repair and waterproofing of
and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. (members). 1. ‘4.1In consideration of the full, satisfactory
IPT and ICT buildings, all in accordance
and faithful per- formance by the
with the plans and specifications and
605 CONTRACTOR of all its undertakings
subject to the terms and conditions of the
VOL. 422, FEBRUARY 13, 2004 605 Bid Documents. The CONTRACTOR and obligations defined in and provided
for under this agreement, the MIAA
Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) shall likewise be responsible for the
agrees to pay the CONTRACTOR the
vs. ALA Industries Corporation removal, hauling, disposal of materials
total amount of PESOS: THIRTY TWO
used in the work area including cleaning
“WHEREFORE, the appealed final order is thereof during and after completion of the
MILLION [AND] 00/100 (P32,000,000.00)
hereby REVERSED. The Court a quo is Philippine Currency, payable as follows:
work.
ordered to issue a Writ of Execution directing 2. ‘1.2The CONTRACTOR guarantees and
the branch sheriff to enforce [Respondent] warrants the availability, quality and 1. 4.1.1Initial payment shall be made upon
ALA Industries’ unpaid claim against genuineness of all the materials it will submission of work accomplishment of
[Petitioner] Manila International Airport supply, deliver and use in the not less than 15%;
construction. 2. 4.1.2Subsequent payments shall be for
Authority (MIAA) in the total amount of
3. ‘1.3The CONTRACTOR warrants further work accomplished as measured, verified
P7,171,835.53.” 3
and approved by MIAA. Such progress
that all works stipulated in the Contract
The Facts billings shall indicate actual work
shall be done in good and acceptable
The facts of the case are narrated by the condition and to make good at the accomplishments and shall be subject to
CA as follows: CONTRACTOR’S expense any the approval of MIAA, which approval
“[Petitioner] MIAA conducted a public bidding imperfections or defects which the MIAA shall not be unreasonably withheld.
for a contract involving the structural repair or its representative may discover during 3. 4.1.3Progress billings shall be paid by the
the progress of the work within one (1) MIAA periodically but not more than once
and waterproofing of the International
year from and after acceptance in writing a month within 30 calendar days from
Passenger Terminal (IPT) and International receipt hereof.’
Container Terminal (ICT) buildings of the of the said work by the MIAA, as provided
in the General Conditions and
Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA).
Specifications. “The contract contains escalation clauses
Out of eleven bidders, [Respondent] ALA
and price adjustments. [Respondent] made the
submitted the second lowest and most _______________
necessary repairs and waterproofing. After
advantageous bid. The contract was awarded
submission of its progress billings to
to [respondent] in the amount of CA Decision, p. 12; Rollo, p. 37.
[petitioner], [respondent] received partial
3
Execution is denied.’
2002. putting an end to one that has already
“SO ORDERED.” 6
609 commenced. 11
Ruling of the Court of Appeals VOL. 422, FEBRUARY 13, 2004 609
Reversing the trial court, the CA ordered _______________
Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA)
it to issue a writ of execution to enforce vs. ALA Industries Corporation
respondent’s claim to the extent of Petitioner’s
8 Memorandum, p. 7; Rollo, p. 113.
Original in upper case.
petitioner’s remaining balance. The “II. 9 The parties to a compromise agreement adjust
appellate court ratiocinated that a their respective positions by mutual consent in the
judgment rendered in accordance with a Whether or not the delay of petitioner in way they feel they can live with. Regal Films, Inc. v.
compromise agreement was immediately complying with its obligation under the Concepcion, 414 Phil. 807, 812; 362 SCRA 504 August
Compromise Agreement is justified under the 9, 2001.
executory, and that a delay of almost two 10 Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority
months was not substantial compliance principle that no person shall be responsible
(MCIAA) v. Court of Appeals, 346 SCRA 126, 140,
for those events which could not be foreseen,
therewith. November 27, 2000; Abantos v. Court of Appeals, 374
or which though foreseen, were inevitable. Phil. 157, 168; 315 SCRA 550, September 30,
Hence this Petition. 7
CA Decision, pp. 2-8; Rollo, pp. 27-33. The Petition has no merit. is a bilateral act or transaction that is
6
April 3, 2002, upon receipt by this Court of binding on the contracting parties and is
respondent’s Comment on Memorandum for expressly acknowledged by the Civil Code
Petitioner, signed by Attys. Perpetuo M. Lotilla, Jr. as a juridical agreement between
them. Provided it is not contrary to law, X, 217 Phil. 153, 163; 132 SCRA 156, September 28, See also Spouses San Antonio v. Court of Appeals, 371
13
and Pamintuan v. Muñoz, 131 Phil. 213, SCRA 536, 543, December 7, 2001; Thermphil, Inc. v. Court
morals, good customs, public order or 1984; of Appeals, 369 SCRA 682, 688, November 20, 2001; Spouses
216; 22 SCRA 1109, March 15, 1968.
public policy, it
14 is immediately “[R]es judicata x x x literally means ‘a matter Magat v. Spouses Delizo, 413 Phil. 24, 31-32; 360 SCRA 508,
16
July 5, 2001; Salvador v. Ortoll, 343 SCRA 658, 668,
executory. 15 adjudged, a thing judicially acted upon or decided, a October 18, 2000; Republic v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil.
Judicial Compromise thing or matter settled by judgment’ x x x.” Vda. de 174, 184; 296 SCRA 171, September 25, 1998; National
Salanga v. Alagar, 335 SCRA 728, 740, July 14, 2000, Electrification Administration v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil.
Final and Executory per Ynares-Santiago, J.; citing Mirpuri v. Court of 420, 427; 280 SCRA 199, October 6, 1997; Santos v. Judge
In a long line of cases, we have Appeals, 376 Phil. 628, 649; 318 SCRA 516, Dames II, 345 Phil. 242, 247; 280 SCRA 13, October 2,
consistently held that “x x x ‘a compromise November 19, 1999, per Puno, J. 1997; Arkoncel, Jr. v. Lagamon, 204 SCRA 560, 567,
611 December 4, 1991; Hagosojos v. Court of Appeals, 155 SCRA
once approved by final orders of the court 175, 182, October 28, 1987; Binamira v. Ogan-Occena, 148
has the force of res judicata between the 16
VOL. 422, FEBRUARY 13, 2004 611677, 683, March 23, 1987; and De Guzman v. Court of
SCRA
Appeals, 137 SCRA 730, 736, July 23, 1985.
parties and should not be disturbed except Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA)
Once stamped with judicial approval, the
18
for vices of consent or forgery.’ Hence, ‘a vs. ALA Industries Corporation compromise agreement becomes more than a mere
decision on a com- promise agreement is final and executory contract binding upon the parties. The court’s
x x x.’” Such agreement has the force of sanction imbues it with the force and effect of any
17
_______________ law and is conclusive between the other judgment. Abarintos v. Court of Appeals,
18
887; 247 SCRA 767, August 28, 1995; and David v. that is subject to execution in accordance 205; 257 SCRA 411, June 17, 1996, citing World
Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 644, 650, October 16, with the Rules. Judges therefore have the Machine Enterprises v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 192 SCRA 459, 465, December 20, 1990;
20
1992.
ministerial and mandatory duty to and United Housing Corp. v. Dayrit, 181 SCRA 285,
12Amarante v. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 104, implement and enforce it. 21 293-294, January 22, 1990.
108, May 3, 1994. Abarintos v. Court of Appeals, supra, p. 170.
To be valid, a compromise agreement is
20
“The Civil Code not only defines and authorizes Dadap-Malinao v. Judge Mijares, 372 SCRA
21
compromises, it in fact encourages them in civil merely required by law, first, to be based 128, 134-135, December 12, 2001; citing Rubio v.
actions.” Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corp. v. on real claims; second, to be actually Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Br. 4, Cagayan de
Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 471, 484; 268 SCRA 5, February Oro City, 322 Phil. 179, 193-194; 252 SCRA 172,
10, 1997; citing Article 2029 of the Civil Code, which was
agreed upon
January 24, 1996.
also cited in Osmeña v. Commission on Audit, 238 SCRA 612
463, 471, November 29, 1994, per Narvasa, CJ. _______________
“After all, reciprocal concessions are the very heart and 612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
life of every compromise agreement.” Abarintos v. Court of 17 Esguerra v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 58, ANNOTATED
Appeals, supra, p. 169, per Buena, J.; citing the Report of 68; 267 SRA 380, February 3, 1997, per
the Code Commission, p. 154, which was also cited in Litton Panganiban, J.; citing Casal v. Concepcion, Jr., 313
Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA)
v. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 40, 47, October 9, 1996. vs. ALA Industries Corporation
Phil. 221, 225; 243 SCRA 369, April 6, 1995; Republic
13 Galay v. Court of Appeals, supra.
14 Article 1306 of the Civil Code.
v. Sandiganbayan, 226 SCRA 314, 328, September in good faith. Both conditions are present
22
613
relations. payment to be made by petitioner.
VOL. 422, FEBRUARY 13, 2004 613
The Christmas Season Certainly, this payment was not lost or
Not a Fortuitous Event Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) destroyed, but merely delayed, thus
The failure to pay on the date stipulated vs. ALA Industries Corporation causing injury to respondent.
was clearly a violation of the Agreement. “x x x (a) [T]he cause of the unforeseen and Granting arguendo such loss or
unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the
Within thirty days from receipt of the destruction, the Christmas season could
debtor to comply with his obligations, must be
judicial Order approving it—on December independent of human will; (b) it must be
not have been the sole and proximate
20, 1997—payment should have been impossible to foresee the event which cause thereof.
made, but was not. Thus, nonfulfillment of constitutes the caso fortuito, or if it can be Third, the occurrence of the Christmas
the terms of the compromise justified foreseen, it must be impossible to avoid; (c) the season did not at all render impossible the
execution. It is the height of absurdity for
24
occurrence must be such as to render it normal fulfillment of the obligation of
petitioner to attribute to a fortuitous event impossible for the debtor to fulfill his petitioner; otherwise, few claims would
its delayed payment. Petitioner’s obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the ever be paid during this period. It ought to
explanation is clearly “a gratuitous obligor must be free from any participation in have taken appropriate measures to
assertion that borders on the aggravation of the injury resulting to the ensure that a delay would be avoided.
callousness.” The 25 Christmas season creditor.”27
When it entered into the Agreement, it
cannot be cited as an act of God that would None of these elements appears in this knew fully well that the 30-day period for
excuse a delay in the processing of claims case. it to pay its obligation would
by a government entity that is subject to First, processing claims against the
routine accounting and auditing rules. government and subjecting these to the _______________
A fortuitous event is one that cannot be usual accounting and auditing procedures
SCRA 625, December 14, 1999; and Southeastern
foreseen or, though foreseen, is are certainly not only foreseeable and
College, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 434,
inevitable. It 26 has the following expectable, but also dependent upon the 441; 292 SCRA 422, July 10, 1998.
characteristics: human will. Liquidation and payment Yobido v. Court of Appeals, 346 Phil. 1, 10; 281
27
Fourth, petitioner cannot argue that it was already an antecedent appropriation creating the cause of the mischief. Such 34
is free from any participation in the delay. for the contract when peti- doctrine cannot be invoked to protect a
It should have laid out on the compromise person who has failed to take steps to
table the problems that would be caused _______________ forestall the possible adverse
by a deadline falling during the Christmas consequences of loss
35 or injury. Since the
season. Furthermore, it should have Enriquez v. People, 387 Phil. 562, 581; 331
29
SCRA 538, May 9, 2000; citing Tinga v. People, 160 delay in payment in the present case was
explained to respondent that government SCRA 483, 491, April 15, 1988. See Diaz v. partly a result of human participation—
accounts would be examined carefully and Sandiganbayan, 361 Phil. 789, 808; 302 SCRA 118, whether from active intervention or
thoroughly to the last detail, in strict January 26, 1999.
§2(2) of Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution; neglect—the whole occurrence was
compliance with accounting and auditing
30
615 discharge.
of the corresponding checks. Without first Verily, an assiduous scrutiny of the
31
something which a reasonable man, guided by those are clear and leave no doubt as to their
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct intention. Thus, the literal meaning of its different from or against the terms and
of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something conditions of their Compromise
which a prudent and reasonable man would not
stipulations must control. It “must be
44
Phil. 991, 1002; 321 SCRA 375, December 21, 1999, as including only matters specifically
by construction or make a new one for the
per Davide Jr., CJ. parties; “its duty is confined to the
determined therein or which, by necessary
616 interpretation of the one which they have
inference from its wording, must be
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS made for themselves without regard to its
deemed included.”45
of care, precaution or vigilance that the v. Court of Appeals, 323 Phil. 374, 391; 253 SCRA judgment without declaring in an
circumstances justly demanded, and that
39 303, February 7, 1996; and US v. Barias, 23 Phil. 434, incidental hearing that the Agreement
an ordinarily prudent person would have 437 November 12, 1912. was vitiated by any of the grounds
40 Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of
done. 40 enumerated in Article 2038 of the Civil
Appeals,357 Phil. 703, 731; 297 SCRA 30, October 1,
Court Without Power to Alter 1998. See Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Code. Above all, neither the Agreement
49
a Judicial Compromise Appeals, 336 Phil. 667, 676; 269 SCRA 695, March 14, nor the court’s approval of it was ever
“The principle of autonomy of contracts 1997; and Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate questioned or assailed by the parties.
Court, 167 SCRA 363, 372-273, November 14, 1988.
must be respected.” The Compromise
41
41 Barons Marketing Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 349
Basic is the rule that if a party fails or
Agreement was a contract perfected by Phil. 769, 779; 286 SCRA 96, February 9, 1998, per refuses to abide by a compromise
mere consent; hence, it should have been
42 Kapunan, J. agreement, the other may either enforce it
42 Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, supra, pp. 182-183.
or regard it as rescinded and insist upon in the Compromise Agreement. The Court 52 “Art. 1229. The judge shall equitably reduce the
penalty when the principal obligation has been partly
the original demand. For failure of
50 cannot reduce it. The partial payment or irregularly complied with by the debtor, x x x.”
petitioner to abide by the judicial made by petitioner does not at all 53 Commercial Credit Corp. of Cagayan de Oro v.
compromise, respondent chose to enforce contravene Article 1229 of the Civil Court of Appeals, 169 SCRA 1, 8, January 2, 1989.
54 Padcom Condominium Corporation v. Ortigas
it. The latter’s course of action was in Code, which is applicable only to
52
481; 260 SCRA 645, August 22, 1996, per Torres, SCRA 116, 128, April 3, 2002, per Carpio, J.
Jr., J. very start, respondent was already asking 619
49 “Art. 2038. A compromise in which there is the courts to enforce all its claims, VOL. 422, FEBRUARY 13, 2004 619
mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, undue pursuant to the Agreement. It has not Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA)
influence, or falsity of documents, is subject to the
provisions of Article 1330 of this Code.
shown any act or conduct that would leads vs. ALA Industries Corporation
xxx xxx x x x” us to believe that by accepting petitioner’s Because estoppel should be applied with
“Art. 1330. A contract where consent is given partial payment, it has dropped all claims caution, the action that gives rise to it
through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue to which it is entitled.
influence, or fraud is voidable.” must be deliberate and unequivocal. 57
——o0o——
_______________
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
620