G.R. No. 147925-26; June 8, 2009
ELPIDIO S. UY, doing business under the name and style EDISON DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION, Petitioner, vs. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Elpidio S. Uy (Uy), through Edison Development and Construction (EDC), entered into a Landscaping Agreement with respondent Public Estates Authority (PEA) for the Heritage Park project. The contract stipulated a 450-day period from the notice to proceed, which Uy received on December 3, 1996. However, PEA failed to deliver work areas on time due to ongoing horizontal works by another contractor and the presence of squatters, extending the contract period to 693 days and excluding a portion of the area. Due to these delays, Uy incurred additional costs for idle equipment and manpower, sourcing topsoil from a farther location, and constructing a nursery shade. PEA terminated the contract in November 1999, paying progress billings but rejecting Uy’s additional claims.
Uy filed a complaint with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC), which awarded him monetary claims for idle equipment, idle manpower, and the nursery shade. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed PEA’s petition for a defective verification and Uy’s petition for being filed out of time. The CA also found no merit to reverse the CIAC’s substantive findings. Uy elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Uy’s petition for review on technical grounds and in upholding the CIAC’s award, particularly its denial of certain claims for additional costs.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s decision. On procedural grounds, the Court held that Uy’s petition to the CA was indeed filed late. The reglementary period to appeal the CIAC decision under Rule 43 is 15 days from notice. Uy received the CIAC decision on June 7, 2000, and filed a motion for reconsideration with the CIAC on June 16. The CIAC Rules require it to resolve such a motion within 30 days. The CIAC’s failure to act within that period rendered the motion deemed denied as of July 16, 2000. Uy then had a fresh 15-day period to file his petition with the CA, which expired on July 31, 2000. His filing on July 24, 2000, was therefore timely. However, the CA’s dismissal on this technicality was deemed harmless error, as the Court proceeded to review the substantive merits.
On the merits, the Court sustained the CIAC’s findings. The CIAC correctly awarded costs for idle equipment and manpower, as these were direct consequences of PEA’s delay in delivering work areas, which constituted a breach of contract. However, the CIAC and the CA rightly disallowed Uy’s claims for extra costs in sourcing topsoil and for water truck mobilization. The contract explicitly placed the risk of material price increases on the contractor, and Uy failed to substantiate his claim that the delay necessitated obtaining topsoil from a more expensive source. The claim for water trucks was also denied due to lack of evidentiary support. The CIAC’s factual determinations, being supported by evidence and the contract terms, are accorded finality and are not subject to review by the Supreme Court.