GR 153033; (June, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153033; June 23, 2005
DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NAPOLEON N. ARAGONES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMPI) entered into an agreement with MEGA-WAFF for the supply and installation of modular pavement at its warehouse. To fulfill this, MEGA-WAFF entered into a “Supply Agreement” with respondent Napoleon N. Aragones’s Dynablock Enterprises. The agreement required Dynablock to fabricate concrete blocks using its own machines and labor at a site provided by MEGA-WAFF, which would also supply the cement and aggregates. Dynablock was to be paid a unit price per accepted piece.
After completing the blocks, Aragones was not fully paid by MEGA-WAFF. He then wrote to DMPI, invoking provisions of the Civil Code, requesting direct payment from funds DMPI owed to MEGA-WAFF. Despite this notice, DMPI proceeded to pay MEGA-WAFF in full. Aragones sued both MEGA-WAFF and DMPI for collection. The trial court held only MEGA-WAFF liable, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding DMPI solidarily liable with MEGA-WAFF for the unpaid balance.
ISSUE
Whether DMPI is solidarily liable with MEGA-WAFF for the unpaid obligations to respondent Aragones.
RULING
Yes, DMPI is solidarily liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic rests on the application of Articles 1729 and 1723 of the Civil Code. The contract between MEGA-WAFF and Dynablock was not a contract of sale but a contract for a piece of work. Dynabblock supplied its own machinery, labor, and expertise to fabricate the blocks according to MEGA-WAFF’s specifications at a designated site, with MEGA-WAFF providing raw materials. This constitutes a contract for a piece of work, making the provisions on warranty against hidden defects and the liability of the owner or proprietor applicable.
Under Article 1729, the claim of laborers, suppliers, and subcontractors for work done attaches to the improvements. More critically, Article 1723 provides that the owner or proprietor is liable to such claimants if he pays the contractor before the expiration of the period for claims or without requiring the contractor to post a bond for the completion of the work. Here, DMPI, as the project owner, received a formal written claim from Aragones before its obligation to pay MEGA-WAFF was due. By paying MEGA-WAFF in full despite this notice, DMPI failed to safeguard the interests of the subcontractor. This act made DMPI directly and solidarily liable for the unpaid amount, as it effectively allowed the contractor to be unjustly enriched at the expense of the subcontractor who had already performed. The Court found no merit in DMPI’s defenses, noting its payment after notice reflected a disregard for Aragones’s rights, justifying the award of damages and attorney’s fees.