DEIPARINE, JR vs CA

GR ## GR No. 96643
Petitioner: Ernesto Deiparine, Jr
Respondents: Hon. Courts of Appeals,
Carungay and Engr. Nicanor Trinidad
Date April 23, 1993
Cruz, J.

ISSUES/HELD
Cesario

DOCTRINE There can be rescission is the injured party

is left without other recourse but to rescind the contract.
(SHORT VERSION)
Respondent Carungay entered to a construction contract
with the Petitioner Deiparine, who is a contractor.
However, it came to the knowledge of Carungay,
through Trinidad (his engineer in charge for the
construction), that Deiparine is not following the
specifications they agreed on for the building and the
structure lacks strength and not safe for its future
occupants. Carungay moved to rescind the contract. CA
ruled in favor of Carungay. SC affirmed.
FACTS
Respondent Carungay entered to a construction contract
with Petitioner Deiparine (a contractor) for the
construction of a three-storey dormitory in Cebu City.
Carungay agreed to pay P970,000 inclusive of
contractors fee, and Deiparine bound himself to erect
the said building in strict accordance to plans and
specifications. The Plan specified that the building
must have 3,000 psi (pounds per square inch) as the
acceptable minimum compressive strength.
Through Engr. Trinidad, it came to the knowledge of the
respondents that Deiparine is not following the plans and
that the construction works are faulty and haphazardly
in order to maximize his personal profit. Carungay sent
memorandums to Deiparine complaining about the work
done by the latter, but the same were ignored.
Carungay asked for a core testing to examine the
compressive strength of the building. Deiparine
eventually agreed to undertake such test. The result was
against Deiparine, the building failed to bear the
minimum 3,000 psi compressive strength. Carungay
move to rescind the contract. RTC ruled in the favor of
the respondents. CA affirmed. Hence this case. The
petitioners are claiming that the specification of 3,000
psi is not included in their contract thus not a valid
ground for rescission.

(1) WoN Carungay is entitled to rescission - YES

RATIO
(1) The contention of the petitioner that the specification
was not included in their contract is untenable. It is true
that there was no real specification included in the
contract but the same was intended to be followed after
the signing and before the commencement of the
construction. Also, the petitioners own project manager
admitted that Deiparine was actually instructing them
(the construction people) to ignore the specific orders or
instructions of Carungay and Trinidad. In addition, the
Deiparine Construction Firm is not a very able firm
since none of them is a engineer except one who only
visited the construction site two months after the
commencement of the construction.
There are two sets of specifications in the contract: (1)
list of the materials to be used; (2) the required structural
compressive strength of 3,000 psi. Deiparine eventually
recognized that there really are specifications but
contested that the minimum compressive strength of
3,000 psi is unnecessary for buildings since 3,000 psi is
only required for roads. According to him, 2,500 psi is
enough for buildings.
The explicit deviance to the specifications, in his intial
refusal to undergo core testing, and his preference to his
personal profit than that of the proper execution of the
contract, shows bad faith. The court sees no reason to
disturb the ruling of CA that Deiparine did not deal with
the Carungays in good faith. His breach if this duty
constituted a substantial violation of the contract
correctible by judicial rescission. When the structure
failed under this test, the respondents were left with
no other recourse than to rescind their contract.
DECISION
Judgment affirmed.
O