Deiparine v CA

F:
Cesario and Teresita Carungay entered into an agreement with Ernesto
Deiparine on August 13, 1982 for a construction of a 3-storey dorom in Cebu.
They paid 970k and Deiparine bound himself to erect th said building "in strict
accordance with the plans and specifications".
Nicanor Trinidad, a civil engineer, shall be the representatives of the Carungay.
Trinidad sent Deiparine a document "General Conditions and Specifications"
prescribing a 3,000 psi minimum acceptable strength of the building.
Trinidad reported to Carungay that Deiparine was deviating from the plans.
Carungay issued a memo that he must first give his approval before the pouring
process of cement commences. This was ignored.
Both parties agreed to cylinder tests. Carungay suggested core testing as this
is more effective and scientific than the cylinder tests.
Based on 24 core samples, all failed the 3000 psi test. Only 3 passed the 2,500
samples failed. 5 passed the 2,000 psi test.
Carungay filed a complaint with the RTC of Cebu for rescission of the
construction contract and for damages. Deiparine argued that RTC has no
jurisdiction, it is the Philippines Construction Development Board (which is
actually inexistent) that has jurisdiction.
RTC ruled in favor of Carungays. CA affirmed in toto the appealed decision.
I: WON the contract between the two was validly rescinded?
H:
The implementing body being referred to is the Philippine Domestic Construction
Board not the Philippine Construction Development Board as maintained by
Deiparine.

The counsel of Deiparine obviously is trying to mislead the Court--> He

substituted the word "the" for "public". He also put the emphasis wrongly on
the paragraph concerning the jurisdiction of PDCB: emphasizing "adjudication
and settlement" rather than "formulate and recommend".
ON THE ISSUE OF RESCISSION
Deiparine's argument: the contract does not specify any compressive strength
for the structure nor does it require that the same be subjected to any kind of
stress test.
Court: Based on Deiparine's testimony, it was understood that the plans and
specifications would be given to him by Nicanor Trinidad later on. Thus it cannot
be said that the tests are not included in the contract.
Deiparine obviously wanted to avoid additional expenses which would reduce his
profit. It is not disputed that he is not an engineer or architect but a former ship
captain and a master mariner. His staffs in his construction also lacks the
necessary credentials to be working in such an environment.
When Carungay's requested core testing to be conducted, he vehemently
refused to go along and insisted that the results of the cylinder tests were
conclusive.
It is obvious that Deiparine did not deal with the Carungays in good faith. His
breach of this duty constituted substantial violation of the contract
correctible by judicial rescission.
While it is true that stress test was not required in the contract, it was the only
manner by which the owner could determine if the contractor had faithfully been
complying with his prestations under their agreement.
Deiparine's Argument: Art. 1191 does not apply, it should be Art 1385 and Art
1725 that should apply.
Court: Art. 1385 is limited to the "rescissible contracts" enumerated in Art. 1381,
i.e. those without the proper consent, those undertaken in fraud of creditors,

those refer to things under litigation, etc.

The right of rescission in Art. 1191 is applicable bec. it relates to contracts
involving reciprocal obligation like the one in the case at bar.
Art. 1191, unlike Art. 1385 is not predicated on economic prejudice to one of the
parties that violates but on breach of faith by one of them that violates the
reciprocity between them