Pureza vs. CA et.al., G.R. No. 122053, May 15, 1998
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
Respondent spouses Bonifacio and
Crisanta Alejandro are building contractors conducting business under the name
of Boncris Trading and Builders. Petitioner Ruperto Pureza sought their
services in the construction of a two-story house at Don Juan Bayview
Subdivision, at Sucat, Muntinlupa. To facilitate this project, he applied for a
Pag-Ibig Housing Loan with the Asia Trust Development Bank in the amount of
P194,100.00, signing an order of payment authorizing the release of specified
amounts to the contractor in connection with the construction. This arrangement
was embodied in a Construction Agreement entered into by the parties, with the
net proceeds of the loan amounting to P155,356.30.
On March 19, 1986, petitioner (as
plaintiff) filed an action for Specific Performance and damages with a Prayer
for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the RTC of Makati
to prevent respondent Bank from collecting the loan or foreclosing the mortgage
on plaintiffs house and lot. He claimed that although the construction was only
seventy percent (70%) finished, the Bank had released to the spouses ninety
percent (90%) of the proceeds of the loan, except for the sum of P14,000.00
which the Bank applied to amortizations. In their answer, the defendant spouses
alleged that the plaintiff and his wife Myrna authorized the release of the
proceeds of the loan on a staggered basis, in accordance with the Order of
Payment. They further state that, the plaintiff having signed a Certificate of
House Completion/ Acceptance, the Bank was likewise authorized to turn the loan
over to the Pag-Ibig Housing as creditor.
ISSUE
Whether or not the defendants are jointly and
severally liable for the costs of repair, moral and exemplary damages,
attorney's fees and the costs of suit.
RULING
No.
Under Article 1431 of the Civil
Code, whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission,
intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing to be
true, and to act upon such a belief he cannot, in any litigation arising out of
such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it.
In this case, the application of
the principle of estoppel is proper and timely in heading off petitioner's
shrewd efforts at renouncing his previous acts to the prejudice of parties who
had dealt with him honestly and in good faith. Respondent Bank and respondent
spouses cannot be held jointly and solidarily liable for the costs of repair, moral
and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and the costs of suit. The findings of
the lower court that respondent Bank recklessly and negligently released the
proceeds of the loan to the spouses were not supported by evidence. The Bank
did nothing but fulfill its undertakings under the loan agreement in accordance
with petitioner's instructions. It cannot be charged for any damage caused upon
the house of petitioner even if such damage may be attributable to the spouses.
If, indeed, repairs were necessary to improve the physical condition of the
house, respondent Bank not being the contractor thereof, cannot be held jointly
and severally liable with the spouses.
No comments:
Post a Comment