Shinryo v RRN 2010

Quasi-Contract as a source of obligation SHINRYO (PHILIPPINES) COMPANY, INC. V. RRN INC. G.R. No. 172525 October 20, 2010 AC!S

Petitioner Shinryo (Philippines) Company, Inc. (petitioner) and private respondent RRN RRN Inco Incorp rpor orat ated ed (res (respo pond nden ent) t) are are dome domest stic ic corp corpor orat atio ions ns orga organi nize zed d unde underr Philippine laws. Respondent Respondent led a claim !or ar"itration against petitioner "e!ore the Construction Construction Industry #r"itration Commission (CI#C) !or recovery o! unpaid account while petitioner led a counterclaim counterclaim !or overpayment. It was shown that petitioner and respondent e$ecuted e$ecuted an #greement and Conditions o! Su"%contr Su"%contract. act. Responden espondentt signied signied its willingn willingness ess to accept accept and per!orm per!orm !or petitioner in any o! its pro&ects descri"ed in Conditions o! Su"%Contract and other Su"%cont Su"%contract ract documents documents.. 'he parties parties also agreed agreed that respond respondent ent will per!orm per!orm variation orders !or the Phillip orris reeneld Pro&ect (Pro&ect). In connection with it, petitioner supplied manpower chargea"le against respondent. Respondent was not a"le to nish the entire wor*s with petitioner due to nancial di+culti di+culties. es. Petition Petitioner er partially partially paid paid respond respondent. ent. Respon Respondent dent,, through through its !ormer !ormer counsel sent a letter to petitioner demanding !or the payment o! its unpaid "alance.  'herea!ter,  'herea!ter, petitioner sent a letter to respondent respondent denying any unpaid account and the !ailure in their negotiations !or amica"le settlement. Respondent, Respondent, through its new counsel, advised petitioner o! their intention to su"mit the matter to ar"itration. 'herea!ter, 'herea!ter, their dispute was su"mitted to ar"itration ISS"E

hether or not the Claimant-s claim !or inventory o! e$cess materials constitutes constitutes to un&ust enrichment as a uasi%contract uasi%contract HEL#

No, the court o! appeals committed a grave reversi"le error in a+rming that the CI#C award !or the values o! inventoried materials considering that respondent RRN has no "asis to claim "ecause /ngr. 0oni!acio admitted that respondent RRN !ailed to esta"lish whether the materials came !rom respondent or !rom petitioner and that it was petitioner that actually installed the said materials as part o! remaining wor*s that the petitioner too* over !rom respondent RRN.  'he claim !or the value o! inventoried materials is a dou"led claim or a dou"led entry "ecause in the computation o! the nal account, respondent RRN was credited the !ull contract price and the cost o! variations which included the inventoried materials.

1espite petitioner-s attempts to ma*e it appear that it is advancing uestions o!  law, it is uite clear that what petitioner see*s is !or this Court to recali"rate the evidence it has presented "e!ore the CI#C. It insists that its evidence su+ciently proves that it is entitled to payment !or respondent-s use o! its manli!t euipment, and even a"sent proo! o! the supposed agreement on the charges petitioner may impose on respondent !or the use o! said euipment, respondent should "e made to pay "ased on the principle o! un&ust enrichment. Petitioner also uestions the amounts awarded "y the CI#C !or inventoried materials, and costs incurred "y petitioner !or completing the wor* le!t unnished "y respondent.