Void Contract

Notwithstanding these irregularities, it should be pointed out that there is no novelty regarding the question of satisfying a claim for construction contracts entered into by the government, where there was no appropriation and where the contracts were considered void due to technical reasons.

Although this Court agrees with respondent’s postulation that the “implied contracts”, which covered the additional constructions, are void, in view of violation of applicable laws, auditing rules and lack of legal requirements, we nonetheless find the instant petition laden with merit and uphold, in the interest of substantial justice, petitioners-contractors’ right to be compensated for the "additional constructions" on the public works housing project, applying the principle of quantum meruit (DPWH v. Quiwa, G.R. No. 183444, October 12, 2011).

Allegation of Aggravating Circumstance / Exemplary Damages

The failure of the prosecution to allege in the information AAA’s relationship to appellant will not bar the consideration of the said circumstance in the determination of his civil liability. In any case, even without the attendance of aggravating circumstances, exemplary damages may still be awarded where the circumstances of the case show the “highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender (People v. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011)

Liberal Construction of the Rules

Firstly, the Court agrees with the CA that petitioners' Position Paper and the affidavits of its witnesses should not have been considered by the trial courts since these were filed beyond the 10-day reglementary period required under Section 10, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and Section 9 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Petitioners do not dispute the appellate court's finding that they submitted their position paper and affidavits more than three months after the deadline set by the abovementioned rules.

As noted by the CA, petitioners did not even bother to file a motion asking the trial court to admit their position paper which was belatedly filed. Indeed, the record is barren of any evidence to show that petitioners, at least, tried to offer any explanation or justification for such delay. They simply ignored the Rules. This Court has previously held that technical rules may be relaxed only for the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving.

In a long line of decisions, this Court has repeatedly held that, while the rules of procedure are liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business (Heirs of Feraren v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159328, October 5, 2011)

Attorney's Fees

Further, the court should state the reason for the award of attorney’s fees in the body of the decision. Its unheralded appearance in the dispositive portion is, as a rule, not allowed.

Here, however, although the RTC did not specifically discuss in the body of its decision its basis for awarding attorney’s fees, its findings of fact clearly support such an award. For instance, the RTC found, based on the record, that Bongar persistently and clearly violated the terms of its contract with Alcatel. It failed to finish the works by October 29, 1991, the stipulated date. It sought on December 1, 1991, more than a month after it was in violation, to finish its job by May 31, 1992, an extra seven months for just a three-month project. Worse, when Alcatel had to take over the job to save its own undertaking to PLDT, Bongar refused to return to Alcatel the uninstalled materials that it provided for the works. Alcatel was forced to litigate to protect its interest (Alcatel v. Bongar, G.R. No. 182946, October 5, 2011)