for the case of FAJ CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs.

SUSAN M. SAULOG the issue in this case is that the respondent

refused to pay which is Susan Saulog to the construction company

after doing the construction works. When the petitioner sent

a demand letters, the respondent said that the works of the

petitioner was defective and it should be made liable.

The claim of Susan is that the work is defective and delayed.

They also failed to remedy those defects. Those defective works

include, sloppily done flooring, dried cement

incorrect colored cement used to fill the gap between the tiles,

need to repair door jamb, and many more. The claim of Susan

was proven through testimonial and documentary evidence so the

decision of the court was for the petitioner to fix the damages

and pay the respondent with the amount of 3,375,000 and the

construction to be

fixed within 270 days.

The next case is Wyeth Philippines vs Construction Industry

Arbitration Commission (“Ciac”) and SKI COnstruction group

the wyeth invited bidders for its upcoming

project and SKI construction group was qualified for the proposal.

SKI was given an advance payment by the Wyeth.

During the construction, Wyeth validly terminated the contract

because SKI incurred delay in the construction of the project.

SKI was not informed of the termination and has not given

14 days to address the issue.

SKI was held liable for the payment of additional costs

incurred by reason of the delay in the performance of its

obligation. However, it awarded SKI the cost of rebars,

formworks, safety equipment and repairs it had made. The decision

of the court was SKI to pay Wyeth for the additional costs for the

delay.

The next case was shangrila properties which is the petitioner

and the bf corporation which is the respondent .

in which the issue is

when the BFC filed a case against the shangrila for not paying

the addressed unpaid progress billings for the change of plans

in the construction and damages cost. The BFC was claiming the

costs for the

original work because of a subsequent change of plans.

The decision of the court

Shangri-La Properties, Inc. must pay BF Corporation the net

amount of P52,635,679.70 plus legal interest of 6% per annum

until the Arbitral Tribunal's decision is final and executory,

and then earn interest of 6% per annum until full satisfaction.

The Philippine National Construction Corp (petitioner) vs

Mars Construction (respondent) Enterprises case The controversy

arose when the petitioner refused to accept the delivery of

17,000 cubic meters of washed 1-1/2" gravel. Respondent

claimed P680,000.00, exemplary damages and attorney's fees,

and demanded payment of P118,518.68. The petitioner

counter-claimed for P85,120 as price differential of the

procurement cost over the agreed price, plus reimbursement

of overpayment of P23,256.80 due to error in measurement.

The CA denied the petitioner's prayer for damages arising from

delays in delivery, and rejected the petitioner's contention

that the respondent committed bad faith. After several checking

of the contract, The Contract did not authorize the petitioner to

limit the quantity of aggregates that may be delivered.

The next case TAR ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Petitioner,

R & G CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING, INC., Respondent.

The issue handled in this case are the petitioner's materials

used in the electrical works are defective and second hand

and it also caused delay in the construction

progress. The ruling of the RTC states that The trial court found

respondent's allegation of defective works as self-serving and

considered petitioner to have faithfully performed its

obligations in accordance with the Construction Contract while the

ruling of the court of appeals, The appellate court found that

petitioner's work was defective and materials were substandard,

while respondent violated its obligations under the Construction

Contract by entering into agreements without giving petitioner

the opportunity to repair its defective work. Each party should

bear its own loss.

Respondent failed to prove petitioner's poor workmanship and

use of substandard materials for the project. To support its

assertions, respondent presented its September 15, 2002 memo and

September 21, 2002 letter. Respondent did not dispute petitioner's

contention that it inspected the panel boards in petitioner's

workshop before they were delivered to the project site.

Respondent's rejection of petitioner's work was

inconsistent with how they worked at the project site.

Respondent presented construction contracts and purchase orders

and sales invoices to prove petitioner's substandard work, but

these documents are not enough to prove that petitioner's work

was poor. The allegations of respondent on petitioner's defective

work fail to convince as they are bare and self-serving

assertions.

next are the ways to avoid construction dispute in order for the

construction project to proceed in order without misunderstanding

between the two parties.

Petitioner FAJ Construction and Development Corporation and respondent Susan M. Saulog entered into
an Agreement for the construction of a residential building in San Lorenzo Village, Makati City for
P12,500,000.00. However, respondent refused to pay, prompting petitioner to terminate the contract.
Petitioner then filed a civil case for collection of a sum of money with damages against respondent.
Petitioner alleged that respondent refused to pay the outstanding balance of P851,601.58, leading to
the construction of the building being stopped. Respondent claimed that petitioner's work was defective
and delayed, leading to rainwater seeping through the building and extensive damage. Respondent
prayed for actual damages in the amount of P3,213,575.91, lost rentals, consequential damages, moral
damages, exemplary damages, penalties for delay, attorney's fees, interest, and costs of suit.