FINANCIAL
BUILDING CORPORATION vs. RUDLIN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, BLOOMFIELD EDUCATIONAL
FOUNDATION, INC., RODOLFO J. LAGERA, MA.
ERLINDA J. LAGERA AND JOSAPHAT R. BRAVANTE, G.R. No. 164186,
October 4, 2010; with accompanying case
-- RUDLIN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, BLOOMFIELD EDUCATIONAL
FOUNDATION, INC., RODOLFO J. LAGERA, MA.
ERLINDA J. LAGERA AND JOSAPHAT R. BRAVANTE vs. FINANCIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, G.R. No. 164347,
October 4, 2010.
“x x x.
Considering
that FBC had not completed the corrective/repair works in accordance with the
Contract Documents and as approved or certified in writing by the Architect as
to its completion, its demand for the payment of the final balance was
premature. Under the Letter-Agreement dated June 5, 1986, final
payment was subject to reconciliation of their accounts regarding the upgrading
and downgrading done on the project. Obviously, this cannot be complied
with unless FBC as the defaulting party completes the repair/corrective works
for only then can the actual cost of additives and deductives be determined. In
reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does not
comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon
him.[41] When
the substandard waterproofing caused extensive damage to the school building,
it was incumbent upon FBC to institute at its own expense the proper repairs in
accordance with the guaranty-warranty stated in the Construction Agreement. Thus,
Rudlin cannot be said to have incurred delay in the reconciliation of accounts,
as a precondition for final payment; instead, it is FBC who was guilty of delay
by its stubborn refusal to replace or re-execute the defective waterproofing of
the subject school building.
X x x.”
