THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 217761. November 11, 2015.]
NAYONG PILIPINO FOUNDATION, petitioner,vs. BSP & COMPANY, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 11, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 217761 (Nayong Pilipino Foundation vs. BSP & Company, Inc.). — The Court resolves to:
(1) GRANT petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period with WARNING that no further extension will be given;
(2) NOTE petitioner's Manifestation and Motion dated August 20, 2015 informing the Court that the parties have already agreed to amicably settle their dispute under the terms and conditions stated in the attached Compromise Agreement and GRANT its prayer that the same be considered and approved, and that judgment be rendered in accordance therewith; and
(3) NOTE the petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolution dated May 26, 2014 and March 6, 2015, respectively, of the Court of Appeals, Manila, in CA-G.R. SP No. 128859.
This case stemmed from a complaint filed by petitioner Nayong Pilipino Foundation (NPF) before the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) against respondent BSP & Company, Inc. (BSPCI).
In 2007, NPF conducted a public bidding for the construction and development of the Bagong Nayong Pilipino Project to be located at the Public Estate Authority Site of the Manila Bay Reclamation Area. BSPCI participated in the said bidding and won the same. 1
On December 4, 2007, NPF awarded the construction and development of the said project to BSPCI for a total contract price of P123,567,157.09. 2 Then, the parties executed a Supplemental Agreement for Construction Services 3 on September 30, 2008 because of the changes in the original design of the project's perimeter fence, thereby increasing the contract price to P138,059,698.29. SCaITA
NPF was able to pay BSPCI a total sum of P123,681,817.29, leaving an unpaid balance of P14,377,881.00. 4
Meanwhile, on July 29, 2010, the Local Government of Parañaque City ordered NPF to pay the project's Locational Clearance amounting to P1,489,204.00. NPF refused to pay the same, arguing that it is BSPCI's duty, as the contractor, to pay for the said clearance. Conversely, BSPCI also declined to secure and pay the project's Locational Clearance. Thus, NPF refused to pay BSPCI the remaining balance of the contract price. 5
This prompted BSPCI to file a Complaint 6 with the CIAC on July 16, 2012, docketed as CIAC Case No. 24-2012, for the collection of the remaining balance. 7
Pending resolution of the case, NPF paid BSPCI the sum of P12,888,677.00 leaving an unpaid balance of P1,489,204.00, representing the cost of the project's Locational Clearance. 8
On January 28, 2013, the CIAC rendered its judgment 9 in favor of BSPCI and found NPF liable to pay the remaining balance of P1,489,204.00, as well as the CIAC fees corresponding to its permissive counterclaim in the amount of P79,893.39, and 12% interest on the total monetary award from the time of the judgment's finality until the total award is fully paid.
Aggrieved, NPF filed a Petition for Review 10 on February 22, 2013 under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 128859.
In a Decision 11 dated May 26, 2014, the CA dismissed the petition. The CA ruled that the Supplemental Agreement for Construction Services does not provide that NPF should withhold the amount of P1,489,204.00 from the total contract price to answer for the amount of locational clearance.
NPF filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution 12 dated March 6, 2015. This caused NPF to take recourse to this Court.
Meanwhile, on August 26, 2015, NPF filed a Manifestation and Motion 13 informing the Court that the parties have agreed to settle their dispute amicably under the terms and conditions embodied in their Compromise Agreement 14 dated August 13, 2015.
Finding that the Compromise Agreement is not contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy, and appears to be freely executed by NPF and BSPCI, with the assistance of their respective counsels, the Court finds no reason not to grant the prayer of the parties and hereby bestows judicial approval upon their Compromise Agreement.
WHEREFORE, the Manifestation and Motion filed on August 26, 2015 is GRANTED and the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The Compromise Agreement dated August 13, 2015 is NOTED and APPROVED. The parties are enjoined to abide by its terms and conditions, and to comply strictly and faithfully with their corresponding obligations.
The case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 33-34.
2.Id. at 44-54.
3.Id. at 63-66.
4.Id. at 34.
5.Id. at 34, 68.
6.Id. at 69-79.
7.Id. at 34.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 141-151.
10.Id. at 152-172.
11.Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring; id. at 32-40.
12.Id. at 42-43.
13.Id. at 177-179.
14.Id. at 180-184.