Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
*
G.R. No. 146717. November 22, 2004.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
308
309
310
311
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
312
313
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
314
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
315
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
316
TINGA, J.:
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
317
_______________
318
8
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
8
Corporation (SBC)
9
each in the amount of
US$8,988,907.00.
In the course of the construction of the project,
petitioner sought various EOT to complete the Project. The
extensions were requested allegedly due to several factors
which prevented the completion of the Project on target
date, such as force majeure occasioned by typhoon Zeb,
barricades and demonstrations. LHC denied the requests,
however. This gave rise to a series of legal actions between
the parties which culminated in the instant petition.
The first of the actions was a Request for Arbitration
which LHC filed before the Construction10 Industry
Arbitration Commission (CIAC) on 1 June 1999. This was
followed by another Request for Arbitration, this time filed
by petitioner 11 before the International Chamber of
Commerce (ICC) on 3 November 2000. In both arbitration
proceedings, the common issues presented were: [1)
whether typhoon Zeb and any of its associated events
constituted force majeure to justify the extension of time
sought by petitioner; and [2) whether LHC had the right to
terminate the Turnkey Contract for failure of petitioner to
complete the Project on target date.
Meanwhile, foreseeing that LHC would call on the
Securities pursuant 12
to the pertinent provisions of the 13
Turnkey Contract, petitioner—in two separate letters
both dated 10 August 2000—advised respondent banks of
the arbitration
_______________
319
_______________
14 Clause 8.2. Time for Completion. The Contractor shall complete all
the Works, including the Tests on Completion, in accordance with the
Program on or before the Target Completion Date. (Rollo, p. 125)
15 Vol. 1, Rollo, pp. 355-357.
16 8.7.1. If the Contractor fails to comply with Clause 8.2, the
Contractor shall pay to the Employer by way of liquidated damages
(“Liquidated Damages for Delay”) the amount of US$75,000 for each and
every day or part of a day that shall elapse between the Target
Completion Date and the Completion Date, provided that Liquidated
Damages for Delay payable by the Contractor shall in the aggregate not
exceed 20% of the Contract Price. The Contractor shall pay Liq
320
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
uidated Damages for Delay for each day of the delay on the following
day without need of demand from the Employer.
17 Annex “L”, Rollo, pp. 383-402.
18 Annex “N”, Id., at pp. 406-409.
19 Annex “O”, Id., at pp. 412-423.
321
_______________
322
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
_______________
323
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
_______________
324
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
_______________
325
_______________
326
_______________
327
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
to the underlying
34
contract or disputes between the parties
thereto.
Since letters of credit have gained general acceptability
in international trade transactions, the ICC has published
from time to time updates on the Uniform Customs and
Practice (UCP) for Documentary Credits to standardize
practices in the letter of credit area. The
35
vast majority of
letters of credit incorporate the UCP. First published in
1933, the UCP for Documentary Credits has undergone 36
several revisions, the latest of which was in 1993.
_______________
328
_______________
329
_______________
330
41
sented and the conditions of the credit are complied with.
Precisely, the independence principle liberates the issuing
bank from the duty of ascertaining compliance by the
parties in the main contract. As the principle’s
nomenclature clearly suggests, the obligation under the
letter of credit is independent of the related and originating
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
_______________
331
332
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
_______________
333
_______________
334
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
_______________
336
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
131020, 20 July 2000, 336 SCRA 309; Valencia v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 119118, 19 February 2001, 352 SCRA 72; Crystal v. Cebu
International School, G.R. No. 135433, 4 April 2001, 356 SCRA 296; Ong
Ching Kian Chuan v. Court of Appeals, 415 Phil. 365; 363 SCRA 145
(2001).
54 Philippine National Bank v. Ritratto Group, Inc., 414 Phil. 494; 362
SCRA 216 (2001).
55 Rollo, p. 31.
337
_______________
338
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
_______________
339
_______________
62 Rollo, p. 493.
63 Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
128102, 7 March 2000, 327 SCRA 359; Soriano v. Court of Appeals, 416
Phil. 226; 363 SCRA 725 (2001); Rodil Enterprises v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 129609, 29 November 2001, 371 SCRA 79; Unionbank of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 370 Phil. 837; 311 SCRA 795 (1999).
64 389 Phil. 20; 333 SCRA 472 (2000).
340
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
_______________
341
_______________
67 Tantoy, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141427, April 20, 2001, 357
SCRA 329.
68 Bangko Silangan Development Bank v. Court of Appeals, 412 Phil.
755; 360 SCRA 422 (2001).
69 Tirona v. Alejo, G.R. No. 129313, October 10, 2001, 367 SCRA 17;
Manalo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141297, October 8, 2001, 366 SCRA
752.
70 Tantoy, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 67; Caviles v. Seventeenth
Division, Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126857, September 18, 2002, 389
SCRA 306.
342
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/28
7/31/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 443
SO ORDERED.
Petition denied.
——o0o——
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173a467c24c29ed6770003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/28