Scribd
Upload
307 views2 pages

BF Corporation vs. MIAA

The case involved a dispute between members of a consortium (MTOB Consortium) that was awarded a contract by the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) to construct the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal II. BF Corporation, one of the consortium members, filed a case against the other members over business differences related to dividing the contract price. BF initially included MIAA as a defendant but later dropped MIAA from the complaint. When the project neared completion, BF filed an amended complaint to re-include MIAA as a defendant, claiming it was entitled to payment from funds MIAA owed to another consortium member. The court ruled that BF was estopped from re-including MIAA, as BF

Uploaded by

Alexis Von Te
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
307 views2 pages

BF Corporation vs. MIAA

The case involved a dispute between members of a consortium (MTOB Consortium) that was awarded a contract by the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) to construct the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal II. BF Corporation, one of the consortium members, filed a case against the other members over business differences related to dividing the contract price. BF initially included MIAA as a defendant but later dropped MIAA from the complaint. When the project neared completion, BF filed an amended complaint to re-include MIAA as a defendant, claiming it was entitled to payment from funds MIAA owed to another consortium member. The court ruled that BF was estopped from re-including MIAA, as BF

Uploaded by

Alexis Von Te
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

BF Corporation vs.

Manila International Airport Authority, 556 SCRA 684

Facts:

Mitsubishi Corporation (Mitsubishi), Tokyu Construction Co., Ltd. (Tokyu), A.M. Oreta & Co., Inc. (Oreta),
and BF formed themselves into the MTOB Consortium (Consortium) to participate in the bidding for the
construction of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal II (NAIA II) Project. MIAA awarded the
contract to the Consortium, recognizing that the Consortium was a distinct and separate entity from the
four member corporations.

Unfortunately, the four members had serious business differences, including the division of the contract
price, forcing BF to file with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pasig City, an action for Specific
Performance, Rescission, and Damages with application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The
RTC served a TRO on Tokyu, the lead partner of the Consortium. During the hearing on the preliminary
injunction, MIAA stressed its position that it should not be dragged into the dispute since it was a
consortium internal matter. Thereafter, in an amended complaint, BF dropped MIAA as a party-
defendant.

When the project was nearing completion, BF filed a second amended complaint. In it, BF pleaded
causes of action against Tokyu, Mitsubushi, and Oreta which have all submitted themselves to the
jurisdiction of the court, and also MIAA who had possession of money to be paid to Tokyu. BF claimed it
was entitled to a proportionate share of the money based on the Consortium agreement. Thus, BF asked
that MIAA be re-impleaded as a party-defendant so it could obtain complete relief.4

In an Order dated May 24, 2001, the RTC directed that MIAA be re-impleaded as a party-defendant. It
said that BF’s earlier move to drop MIAA as a party-defendant should not preclude it from re-impleading
MIAA which still has the obligation to pay the remainder of the contract price.

Issue:

Whether or not the MIAA can still be re-impleaded as a party-defendant.

Ruling:

No. As to the issue of estoppel, we agree with the CA that BF is now estopped from re-impleading MIAA.
While the Rules allow amendments to pleadings by leave of court, in our view, in this case, it would be
an affront to the judicial process to first include a party as defendant, then voluntarily drop the party off
from the complaint, only to ask that it be re-impleaded. When BF dropped MIAA as defendant in its first
amended complaint, it had performed an affirmative act upon which MIAA based its subsequent
actions, e.g. payments to Tokyu, on the faith that there was no cause of action against it, and so on. BF
cannot now deny that it led MIAA to believe BF had no cause of action against it only to make a
complete turn-about and renege on the effects of dropping MIAA as a party-defendant months after, to
the prejudice of MIAA. MIAA had all reasons to rely on the CA’s decision that it was no longer a party to
the suit. Under the doctrine of estoppel, an admission or representation is conclusive on the person
making it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying on it. A person, who by deed
or conduct has induced another to act in a particular manner, is barred from adopting an inconsistent
position, attitude, or course of conduct that thereby causes loss or injury to another.

You might also like