G.R. No. L-5759, August 22, 1911
WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. and HARRY THURBER, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MATSON, LORD & BELSER CO., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The plaintiffs (Manila Construction Company, a subcontractor) entered into a contract with Matson, Lord & Belser Co. for the construction of a reservoir as part of Manila’s water system. The main contract was between Matson, Lord & Belser Co. and the City of Manila. The subcontract mirrored the main contract’s terms except for pricing. The dispute centered on payment for lining the reservoir’s interior surface. The contract specified two types of finishes: a “plaster coat” for solid rock surfaces and a “skim coat” over concrete lining on embankments or defective rock. The plaintiffs applied a finish to approximately 41,592 square yards, claiming it was a “plaster coat” payable at 44 cents gold per square yard under their subcontract. The City of Manila (the real party in interest) refused payment, contending the applied finish was a “skim coat,” which was included in the payment for concrete work ($9.18 per cubic yard) and not separately compensable. The plaintiffs sued for payment, and the trial court dismissed their complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the finish applied by the plaintiffs to the interior surface of the reservoir is a “plaster coat” (separately payable) or a “skim coat” (included in the payment for concrete lining).

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the finish applied was a “skim coat,” not a separately payable “plaster coat.” The Court reasoned that:
1. The contract distinguished between “plaster coat” (for unlined tunnel sections/solid rock) and “skim coat” (for lined sections/concrete surfaces).
2. The plaintiffs admitted the finish was applied over concrete lining inside the reservoir, which paragraph 14 of the contract required to be finished with a “skim coat.”
3. The contract’s general specifications (paragraph 30) provided that items applicable to one class of work also applied to another, even if not specifically mentioned, reinforcing that the skim coat was integral to the concrete work.
4. Pre-bid estimates of “plaster coat” quantities were subject to change per the contract, as the actual conditions (solid rock vs. defective rock/embankment) could not be precisely determined beforehand.
Thus, the skim coat was part of the concrete lining, and its cost was included in the lump-sum payment for concrete work. No separate payment was due. The complaint was properly dismissed.