GR 146120; (January, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146120 ; January 27, 2006
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Petitioner, vs. HTMC ENGINEERS COMPANY, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Department of Health (DOH) entered into four Owner-Consultant Agreements with respondent HTMC Engineers Company for architectural, engineering, and construction supervision services for several hospitals. The contracts stipulated a professional fee of 7.5% of the project fund allocation. HTMC completed the architectural and engineering services and submitted the documents. DOH subsequently proposed amendments to the agreements, including splitting the fee into 6% for design and 1.5% for supervision, with payment based on the project contract cost. HTMC responded with a position paper outlining its own terms for the fee split and payment schedule. While some initial payments were made to HTMC by the hospitals, no final agreement on the amendments was reached. DOH thereafter refused to issue notices to proceed for the construction supervision phase.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the CIAC decision which awarded HTMC’s monetary claims against the DOH.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic centers on the finality of factual findings from quasi-judicial agencies and the prohibition against raising new issues on appeal. The CIAC, as a specialized body, found that the original consultancy contracts were perfected and binding. HTMC had fully performed its obligations for the architectural and engineering services, entitling it to payment. The CIAC also awarded amounts for salaries of engineers engaged for the supervision phase and for unrealized profit, as DOH’s refusal to issue the notice to proceed constituted a breach of contract. The Court emphasized that factual determinations of the CIAC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and not subject to review. Furthermore, the petitioner’s new argument—that there was no perfected contract for construction supervision due to the unresolved amendments—was raised too late. Issues not raised before the arbitral tribunal or the Court of Appeals cannot be entertained for the first time in a petition for review before the Supreme Court. The petition was thus denied for lack of merit.