This case is with reference to Art 1160 of the New Civil Code- Quasi- Contracts
Case of FF. MAÑACOP CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. VS. C.A. and MIAA
G.R.No. 122196 15January1997
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Ff Mañacop Construction Company Inc, was contracted by MIAA to construct a perimeter fence from Asia Overseas Inc to Airscope Development Corp. for and in consideration of the quoted price of 307,440.00 Due to the urgency of the need, FFMCC proceeded with the fence construction even if the Notice to Proceed has not yet been signed by the General Manager.
After the Feb 1986 Revolution, the new general manager of MIAA stopped the construction of said fence, by the time of the halt in construction it is already 95% finished which was worth 282,068.00.
After making repeated demands to make MIAA pay for the constructed fence, FMCC filed a case against MIAA. During trial it has been found that MIAA is liable to pay 238,501.48 based upon quantum meruit since there is an absence of a written contract between parties. On appeal the Court agreed with MIAA with regard to the error of the trial court in the valuation of the obligation. According to the decision of the Appellate Court, the computation for the obligation owed by MIAA should be referred to the Commission on Audit, as was shown in the case of Eslao v. Commission on Audit.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Was the RTC correct in ordering MIAA to pay FMCC on the basis of Quantum Meuit?
- Yes. The S.C. basing its decision on the Eslao case, it was shown the contract was not fraudulent or mala in se, also it has been shown that the project was already covered by a specific appropriation.
- Property or benefit is not ultra vires (they can be a subject of an express contract and are within the contractual powers of the public body)
- It is shown as well that MIAA was reaping the benefits from the scallop fence and wire placed by the petitioner.
- It is also shown that the payment is limited to the actual cost of chargeable against funds authorized and certified for such purpose.
- Unliquidated claims present a justiciable question ripe for judicial determination which is beyond the powers of COA to adjudicate.
[ The difference between the Eslao case and this one, is that the matter was referred to the COA for the Eslao case because the matter on the exact amount was not at issue and the determination thereof involves a review of the factual findings and evidence in support thereof. For this case the Lower court has already determined the actual amount owed by MIAA to FMCC, so there was no need for referral to COA]
HELD:
The decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside and the decision of the RTC is reinstated.
Obligations and Contracts Terms:
Difference of Quantum Meruit from Quantum Valebant- Quantum Meruit allows recovery of the reasonable value regardless of any agreement as to value. It entitles the party to “as much as he, reasonable deserves”, as distinguished from Quantum Valebant or to “as much as what is reasonably worth.”
I hope this helps.
Jeff David
Showing posts with label Quantum Meruit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quantum Meruit. Show all posts
Nov 23, 2009
Civil Law 2- ObliCon- TRB Employees Union- Independent vs. NLRC and Emmanuel Noel A. Cruz
This case is with reference to Art 1160 of the New Civil Code- Quasi- Contracts
Case of Traders Royal Bank Employees Union- Independent vs NLRC and Emmanuel Noel A. Cruz
G.R.No. 120592 14March1997
FACTS OF THE CASE:
That TRB Employees Union, had a retainer agreement with Atty. Cruz, for 3,000.00 in consideration of the law firm’s undertaking to render the services enumerated in their contract. During the existence of the agreement the union referred to the private respondent the claims of its members for holiday, mid-year and year-end bonuses against their employer TRB.
The NLRC granted the petition of the union with regard to the demand for bonuses. After, the S.C. acting upon the challenge of TRBank of the NLRC decision in its decision on August 30, 1990 modified the decision of the NLRC by deleting the award of mid- year and year- end bonus differentials while affirming the award of holiday pay differential.
After TRB voluntarily complied with the decision, the respondent on September 18, 1990 notified the union, TRB management, and the NLRC of his right to exercise and enforce his attorney’s lien over the award of holiday pay differential through a letter dated October 8, 1990.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Was the lien made by the respondent attorney over the award as attorney’s fees valid?
- Yes, Because the contract between the Union and the attorney stipulates that the 3,000.00 paid as retainer fees is intended merely as a consideration for the law firm’s commitment to render the services enumerated on PART A and B of the retainer agreement.
- The retainer fee paid by the Union is not a payment for the firm’s execution or performance of the services listed in the contract, subject to the particular qualifications.
- Obligations do not emanate only from contracts. One of the sources of extra- contractual obligations found in our civil code is the quasi contract premised on the roman maxim that nemo alterius detrimento locupletari potest
- As early as 1903 the court has allowed the payment of reasonable professional fees to an interpreter, not withstanding the lack of understanding with his client as to his remuneration, on the basis a quasi-contract. It is not necessary that the parties agree on a definite fee for the special services rendered by the firm in order that the union may be obligated to pay compensation. Equity and fair play dictate that petitioner should pay the same after it accepted, availed itself of, and benefited from the firm’s services.
- The measure of compensation for private respondent’s services as against his client should be properly addressed by the rule of quantum meruit is used as the basis for determining the lawyer’s professional fees in the absence of a contract.
HELD:
The resolution of the NLRC with regard to the attorney’s fees is modified, and Union is hereby ordered to pay 10,000 for the firm’s rendered services.
Obligations and Contracts Terms:
• General Retaining Fee- is the fee paid to a lawyer to secure his future services as general counsel for any ordinary legal problem that may arise from routinary business of the client and referred to him for legal action. The reason for the remuneration is that the lawyer is deprived of the opportunity of rendering services for a fee to the opposing party or other parties. It is a compensation for lost opportunities.
I hope this helps.
Jeff David
Case of Traders Royal Bank Employees Union- Independent vs NLRC and Emmanuel Noel A. Cruz
G.R.No. 120592 14March1997
FACTS OF THE CASE:
That TRB Employees Union, had a retainer agreement with Atty. Cruz, for 3,000.00 in consideration of the law firm’s undertaking to render the services enumerated in their contract. During the existence of the agreement the union referred to the private respondent the claims of its members for holiday, mid-year and year-end bonuses against their employer TRB.
The NLRC granted the petition of the union with regard to the demand for bonuses. After, the S.C. acting upon the challenge of TRBank of the NLRC decision in its decision on August 30, 1990 modified the decision of the NLRC by deleting the award of mid- year and year- end bonus differentials while affirming the award of holiday pay differential.
After TRB voluntarily complied with the decision, the respondent on September 18, 1990 notified the union, TRB management, and the NLRC of his right to exercise and enforce his attorney’s lien over the award of holiday pay differential through a letter dated October 8, 1990.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Was the lien made by the respondent attorney over the award as attorney’s fees valid?
- Yes, Because the contract between the Union and the attorney stipulates that the 3,000.00 paid as retainer fees is intended merely as a consideration for the law firm’s commitment to render the services enumerated on PART A and B of the retainer agreement.
- The retainer fee paid by the Union is not a payment for the firm’s execution or performance of the services listed in the contract, subject to the particular qualifications.
- Obligations do not emanate only from contracts. One of the sources of extra- contractual obligations found in our civil code is the quasi contract premised on the roman maxim that nemo alterius detrimento locupletari potest
- As early as 1903 the court has allowed the payment of reasonable professional fees to an interpreter, not withstanding the lack of understanding with his client as to his remuneration, on the basis a quasi-contract. It is not necessary that the parties agree on a definite fee for the special services rendered by the firm in order that the union may be obligated to pay compensation. Equity and fair play dictate that petitioner should pay the same after it accepted, availed itself of, and benefited from the firm’s services.
- The measure of compensation for private respondent’s services as against his client should be properly addressed by the rule of quantum meruit is used as the basis for determining the lawyer’s professional fees in the absence of a contract.
HELD:
The resolution of the NLRC with regard to the attorney’s fees is modified, and Union is hereby ordered to pay 10,000 for the firm’s rendered services.
Obligations and Contracts Terms:
• General Retaining Fee- is the fee paid to a lawyer to secure his future services as general counsel for any ordinary legal problem that may arise from routinary business of the client and referred to him for legal action. The reason for the remuneration is that the lawyer is deprived of the opportunity of rendering services for a fee to the opposing party or other parties. It is a compensation for lost opportunities.
I hope this helps.
Jeff David
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
