Ruiz vs. Cabahug, 102 Phil 110 (1957)

CASE DIGEST: G.R. NO. L-9990 Ruiz vs. Cabahug, 102 Phil 110 (1957) Facts: On July 31, 1950 Hon. Sotero B. Cabahug (Secretary of National Defense) accepted the bid of the Allied Technologists, Inc., to furnish the architectural and engineering services in the construction of the Veterans Hospital at a price of P302,700.00 . The plans, specifications, sketches and detailed drawings and other architectural requirements submitted by the Allied Technologists through its architects, Enrique J. L. Ruiz, Jose V. Herrera and Pablo D. Panlilio were approved by the United States Veterans Administration in Washington, D.C. Because of the technical objection to the capacity of the Allied Technologists, Inc. to practice architecture and upon the advice of the Secretary of Justice, the contract was signed on the part of the Allied Technologists, Inc. by Mr. Ruiz as President and Mr. Panlilio as Architect. When the officials of the Department of National Defense paid the Allied Technologists the contract price for the architectural engineering service, they retained 15 per cent of the sum due, for the reason that Mr. Panlilio has asserted that he is the sole and only architect of the Veterans Hospital to the exclusion of his fellow architects Ruiz and Herrera, an assertion aided and abetted by Col. Nicolas Jimenez. This action deprived Mr. Ruiz and Mr. Herrera monetary value of their professional services and damaged their professional prestige and standing.

Issue: Whether the suit filed by the appellants against the government without its consent qualify.

Held: Based from the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, the court decided that the suit should be answered not by the government but to its officials to compel them to act in accordance with the rights to be established by the contending architects, or to prevent them from making payment and recognition until the contending architects have established their respective rights and interest in the funds retained and in the credit for the work done. The order of dismissal is hereby reversed and set aside, and the case is remanded to the court a quo for further proceedings. With costs against the defendants-appellees.

Sources: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1957/sep1957/gr_l-9990_1957.html http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1957septemberdecisions.php?id=258