In Financial Building Corporation v. Rudlin International Corporation, the Supreme Court addressed disputes arising from a construction agreement, specifically concerning liability for defects and the owner’s right to withhold payment until satisfactory completion. The Court held that Financial Building Corporation (FBC) was liable for the defects and deficiencies in the construction of the school building. Rudlin International Corporation (Rudlin) rightfully withheld payment due to FBC’s failure to rectify the substandard work, particularly the defective waterproofing, which caused extensive damage. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to contractual specifications and the contractor’s responsibility for ensuring the quality of work, even when subcontractors are involved. This decision reinforces the principle that owners have the right to demand compliance with agreed-upon standards and withhold payment until defects are properly addressed.

Substandard Construction or Wear and Tear? Decoding Liability for Building Defects

In October 1985, Rudlin International Corporation sought proposals for constructing a three-story school building. Financial Building Corporation won the contract with a bid of P6,933,268.00. A Construction Agreement was signed in November 1985, stipulating the total contract price and a penalty for delays. The agreement set a completion date of April 30, 1986, but the project was not finished on time. Rudlin granted FBC an extension, setting a new completion date of June 10, 1986. On June 5, 1986, a Letter-Agreement amended the original contract, waiving the delay penalty but requiring reconciliation of accounts for upgrades and downgrades. The core dispute revolved around construction defects, the reconciliation of accounts, and Rudlin’s refusal to pay the remaining balance.

The legal framework at play involves contract law, specifically the obligations and liabilities of contractors and owners in construction agreements. The Supreme Court had to interpret the terms of the Construction Agreement and the Letter-Agreement, focusing on provisions related to the quality of work, modifications to the original plans, and the process for addressing defects. A key aspect of the case involves the principle of reciprocal obligations, where neither party is in delay if the other does not fulfill their part of the agreement. The Court also considered the admissibility of evidence to challenge the written terms of the contract, particularly regarding the actual contract price.

At the heart of the dispute was the issue of defective waterproofing. FBC argued that the change in waterproofing brand was discussed and approved by Rudlin’s representative, Josaphat Bravante, during a meeting. However, the Court emphasized that under the Construction Agreement, all changes must be authorized by a written change order signed by both the owner and the architect. Section Fifteen of the Construction Agreement clearly states:

SECTION FIFTEEN
WORK CHANGES

The OWNER reserves the right to order work changes in the nature of additions, deletions, or modifications, without invalidating this Agreement.  All changes shall be authorized by a written change order signed by the OWNER and by the ARCHITECT.

Work shall be changed, and the completion time shall be modified only as set out in the written change order. Any adjustment in the Contract Price resulting in a credit or a charge to the OWNER shall be determined by written agreement of the parties, before starting the work involved in the change.

The Court found that the modification was never approved in writing, and FBC remained liable for the defective waterproofing. This conclusion was supported by a letter from Architect Quezon, which explicitly required FBC to redo the waterproofing work at its own expense. Moreover, the June 5, 1986 Letter-Agreement only amended the provisions related to the completion date and payment schedule, not FBC’s responsibility for defects under the warranties of the Construction Agreement.

The Court also addressed the issue of whether Rudlin had accepted the project. Despite the inauguration of the school building, there was no formal turnover or written acceptance by Rudlin. The Construction Agreement stipulated that the contractor warrants all works for one year from the date of final written acceptance by the owner. Section Sixteen of the Construction Agreement underscores this point:

SECTION SIXTEEN
GUARANTY-WARRANTY

The CONTRACTOR shall, in case of work performed by its subcontractors, secure warranties from said subcontractors and deliver copies of the same to the ARCHITECT or OWNER upon completion of the work.

The CONTRACTOR shall and does hereby warrant and guarantee the following:

(a) All works, for a period of one (1) year from the date of completion as evidenced by the date of final acceptance in writing of the entire work by the OWNER.

(b) All work performed by it directly or performed by its sub-contractors, shall be free from any defects of materials and workmanship.

(c) The CONTRACTOR further agrees that it will, at its own expense, repair and/or replace all such defective materials or work, and all other work damaged thereby which becomes defective during the term of this Guaranty-Warranty.

Since there was no written acceptance, the warranty period had not even commenced, and FBC remained obligated to correct the defects. Rudlin’s refusal to pay the remaining balance was therefore justified, as FBC had not fulfilled its obligations under the Construction Agreement. The Court emphasized that the final payment was subject to reconciliation of accounts, which could not occur until FBC completed the necessary repair and corrective works. In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs delay if the other is not ready to comply with what is incumbent upon them, as stated in Tanguilig v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117190, January 2, 1997.

Concerning the correct total contract price, Rudlin argued that the stated price of P6,933,268.00 was not the true price, claiming an understanding with FBC to decrease it to P6,006,965.00. However, the Court applied the parol evidence rule, which generally prohibits the introduction of evidence to vary or contradict the terms of a written agreement. While there are exceptions, Rudlin failed to sufficiently prove that the written agreement did not reflect the true intent of the parties. Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court reinforces this principle:

SEC. 9. Evidence of written agreements.–When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.

However, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement if he puts in issue in his pleading:

(a) An intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the written agreement;

(b) The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto;

(c) The validity of the written agreement; or

(d) The existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors-in-interest after the execution of the written agreement.

The term “agreement” includes wills.

Rudlin could not invoke exceptions (a) or (b) because the contract was not ambiguous, and the evidence presented was insufficient to prove a different agreement. Even under exception (d), Rudlin failed to provide competent evidence to prove that the decreased amount was mutually acceptable. The Court also rejected Rudlin’s counterclaim for reimbursement of repair expenses, as Rudlin failed to present receipts or other proof of the actual costs incurred. As the Supreme Court has consistently held, the award of actual damages must be based on evidence presented, not on the personal knowledge of the court, as cited in Adrian Wilson International Associates, Inc. v. TMX Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 162608, July 26, 2010.

Finally, the Court denied the claim for attorney’s fees, reiterating that such fees are an exception rather than the rule and are awarded only in specific instances outlined in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. None of those circumstances were present in this case.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the contractor, FBC, was liable for defects in the construction of a school building and whether the owner, Rudlin, was justified in withholding payment due to these defects. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Rudlin, holding FBC liable for the defects.
What does the Construction Agreement say about changes to the original plans?	The Construction Agreement stipulated that all changes or modifications to the original plans must be authorized by a written change order signed by both the owner and the architect. This requirement was crucial in determining liability for the defective waterproofing.
Why was the contractor held liable for the defective waterproofing?	The contractor was held liable because the change in waterproofing brand was not approved in writing by the owner and the architect, as required by the Construction Agreement. The contractor’s failure to obtain this written approval made them responsible for the resulting defects.
Was there a formal acceptance of the completed project?	No, despite the inauguration of the school building, there was no formal turnover or written acceptance of the project by the owner. This lack of formal acceptance meant that the contractor’s warranty period had not commenced, and they remained liable for any defects.
What is the parol evidence rule, and how did it apply to this case?	The parol evidence rule generally prohibits the introduction of evidence to vary or contradict the terms of a written agreement. In this case, the Court applied the rule to prevent Rudlin from introducing evidence that the actual contract price was different from the price stated in the written Construction Agreement.
Why was Rudlin’s claim for reimbursement of repair expenses denied?	Rudlin’s claim for reimbursement was denied because they failed to present receipts or other proof of the actual costs incurred in repairing the defects. The Court emphasized that awards for actual damages must be based on competent evidence, not speculation or guesswork.
What are reciprocal obligations, and how did they affect the outcome of this case?	Reciprocal obligations are mutual duties where neither party is in delay if the other does not fulfill their part of the agreement. The Court held that Rudlin was not in delay for withholding payment because FBC had not completed the necessary repair and corrective works, a precondition for final payment.
What is the significance of a ‘written acceptance’ in construction contracts?	A written acceptance is a formal acknowledgment by the owner that the project meets the agreed-upon standards. It triggers the start of warranty periods and signifies the completion of the contractor’s obligations. Without it, the contractor remains liable for defects.

This case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of clear, written agreements in construction projects. Contractors must ensure strict adherence to contractual specifications and proper documentation of any modifications. Owners, on the other hand, have the right to demand compliance and withhold payment until defects are adequately addressed. The ruling highlights the necessity of maintaining thorough records and obtaining written approvals for all changes to prevent future disputes.

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: Financial Building Corporation v. Rudlin International Corporation, G.R. No. 164347, October 4, 2010