G.R. No. 3123
Simplicio Suarez v. Crisanto

—

FACTS
1. Contracts On 22 Jun 1904 the parties executed a contract for four buildings; on 27 Jul the same parties executed a second contract for a fifth building on the same lot.
2. Price dispute The second contract showed “₱1,500” but bore a handwritten note signed by both parties fixing the price at “₱1,450.” The plaintiff testified the price was later increased by mutual agreement to ₱1,500; the defendant’s testimony was inconsistent.
3. Change in specifications The first contract required single‑thickness partitions. The defendant later directed double‑thickness partitions; the plaintiff sought additional compensation.
4. Wood quality The contract specified certain wood classes. After the balconies were built, the defendant ordered replacement with higher‑quality lumber, claiming the original wood was rotten. The plaintiff incurred extra cost.
5. Architect’s plans The architect’s plans (₱60) were paid for by the plaintiff; the defendant alleged the plaintiff had agreed to furnish them, but there was no contractual provision.
6. Time clause The first contract stipulated 120 working days with a penalty of ₱3 per day for delay. The work was not finished within that period; the defendant claimed a fine of ₱227.24. Subsequent orders for additional work (including the fifth building) were not subject to the original time clause, which the plaintiff argued was waived.
7. Interest The trial court awarded the plaintiff ₱1,185.31 with six‑month interest of ₱35.55. The appellant contested the method of computing interest.

—

ISSUES
1. What is the true contract price for the fifth building ₱1,450 or ₱1,500?
2. Are the plaintiff’s claims for extra work (double‑thickness partitions and superior wood) enforceable?
3. Is the defendant liable for the cost of the architect’s plans?
4. Does the time‑penalty clause apply to the additional work ordered after the original contracts?
5. What is the proper basis and period for awarding interest on the judgment?

—

RULING
1. Contract price The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the price for the fifth building is ₱1,500, finding the evidence (handwritten note and corroborating testimony) not manifestly contrary.
2. Extra work The court sustained the plaintiff’s recovery for the double‑thickness partitions and the replacement of balconies with higher‑quality wood, holding that the defendant’s directives constituted valid contract modifications for which the contractor is entitled to additional compensation.
3. Architect’s plans There being no contractual stipulation that the contractor furnish the plans, and custom dictating that the owner pays, the defendant is not liable for the ₱60 plan fee.
4. Time‑penalty clause The ordering of additional work and the execution of the second contract constituted a waiver of the original 120‑day deadline with respect to the ensuing works; consequently, the ₱227.24 fine for delay is unavailing.
5. Interest Interest is to be awarded from the filing of the action (12 Sept 1905) at 6 % per annum, not only for the six months previously computed.

Accordingly, the judgment is modified: the plaintiff recovers ₱1,185.30 plus interest at 6 % per annum from 12 September 1905, with costs awarded to the appellant. The decision of the Court of Appeals is otherwise affirmed.