Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

    • 55 views

    Deiparine V CA

    Uploaded by

    ana ortiz
    Deiparine entered into an agreement to construct a dormitory building for the Carungay spouses. During construction, the spouses' representative noticed deviations from the plans and specifications and safety issues. Deiparine refused core testing requested by the spouses. The testing revealed failures. The spouses sued to rescind the contract, which lower courts granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Deiparine did not deal in good faith by ignoring safety orders, justifying rescission despite no explicit testing requirement in the contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Deiparine V CA

    Uploaded by

    ana ortiz
    55 views1 page
    Deiparine entered into an agreement to construct a dormitory building for the Carungay spouses. During construction, the spouses' representative noticed deviations from the plans and specifications and safety issues. Deiparine refused core testing requested by the spouses. The testing revealed failures. The spouses sued to rescind the contract, which lower courts granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Deiparine did not deal in good faith by ignoring safety orders, justifying rescission despite no explicit testing requirement in the contract.

    Original Description:

    OBLI CON

    Original Title

    Deiparine v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Deiparine entered into an agreement to construct a dormitory building for the Carungay spouses. During construction, the spouses' representative noticed deviations from the plans and specifications and safety issues. Deiparine refused core testing requested by the spouses. The testing revealed failures. The spouses sued to rescind the contract, which lower courts granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Deiparine did not deal in good faith by ignoring safety orders, justifying rescission despite no explicit testing requirement in the contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    55 views1 page

    Deiparine V CA

    Uploaded by

    ana ortiz
    Deiparine entered into an agreement to construct a dormitory building for the Carungay spouses. During construction, the spouses' representative noticed deviations from the plans and specifications and safety issues. Deiparine refused core testing requested by the spouses. The testing revealed failures. The spouses sued to rescind the contract, which lower courts granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Deiparine did not deal in good faith by ignoring safety orders, justifying rescission despite no explicit testing requirement in the contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    DEIPARINE V CA

    GR NO. 96643
     Parenthetically, Deiparine was not a civil engineer nor an architect but a
    FACTS: master mariner and a former ship captain.
     The spouses Carungay entered into an agreement with petitioner Deiparine
    for a construction of a three-story dormitory in Cebu.
    Deiparine’s contention that the contract does not require any kind of test to be done in
     Deiparine bound himself to erect the building in strict accordance to plans the structure therefore, test or no test he did not violate the agreement.
    and specifications.
     Trinidad was the designated representative of the spouses to inspect and
    But when the respondents insisted to conduct a core test, Deiparine fervently refused
    coordinate with the contractor
    to go along. It seems that he was not confident that the results would be favorable to
    him.
     In the course of the construction, Trinidad reported to Carungay that
    Deiparine had been deviating from the plans and specifications resulting to
    the impairment of the strength and safety of the building.  The court therefore concurs with the lower courts that Deiparine did not deal
     Carungay instructed Deiparine to secure his approval before pouring cement. with the Carungays in good faith. This breach is a substantial violation of the
    Thus, this was not heeded. contract making it susceptible to judicial rescission.
     The parties agreed to conduct a cylinder tests and later a core test to ascertain
    if the structure was built in compliance with the safety standards. Applying Article 1191, the parties being in a reciprocal obligation
     After the core testing all the samples failed.
    The breach of faith by one of them violates the reciprocity between them. The violation
     Respondent spouses filed a complaint for rescission of the construction of reciprocity between Deiparine and the Carungay spouses, to wit, the breach caused
    contract and for damages by Deiparine's failure to follow the stipulated plans and specifications, has given the
    Carungay spouses the right to rescind or cancel the contract.
    RTC: rendered judgment declaring the contract to be rescinded.
    - forfeiture of Deiparine’s expenses in construction and to reimburse the spouses While it is true that the stress test was not required in any of the contract documents,
    for the core testing conducting the test was the only manner by which the owner could determine if the
    - remove all existing structures and restore the premises in its former condition contractor had been faithfully complying with his presentations under their agreement.

    CA, affirmed the decision of the RTC

    ISSUE: WON the contract of construction can be rescinded?


    Decision of the lower courts affirmed with costs to the petitioner.

     Petitioner contends that that the construction agreement does not specify any
    compressive strength for the structure nor does it require that the same be
    subjected to any kind of stress test.
     Therefore, since he did not breach any of his covenants under the agreement,
    the court erred in rescinding the contract.

    HELD:

    Court finds through the testimony of his own project engineer that Deiparine instructed
    them to ignore specific orders from Carungay nor Trinidad in which this orders
    involves safety measures.

    You might also like