DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS G.R. No.

183444
AND HIGHWAYS,
Petitioner,

- versus -

RONALDO E. QUIWA, doing

business under the name R.E.Q.
Construction, EFREN N. RIGOR,
doing businesss under the name Present:
Chiara Construction, ROMEO R.
DIMATULAC, doing business CARPIO, J.,
under the name Ardy Chairperson,
Construction and FELICITAS C. BRION,
SUMERA, doing business under SERENO,
the name F.C.S. Construction, REYES, and
represented by her ATTORNEY- PERLAS-BERNABE,* JJ.
IN-FACT ROMEO M. DE LEON,
Respondents. Promulgated:

October 12, 2011

It has been settled in several cases that payment for services

done on account of the government, but based on a void
contract, cannot be avoided.

This exercise of equity to compensate contracts with the government

was repeated in Eslao vs. COA. In the said case, the respondent
therein, Commission on Audit (COA), was ordered to pay the company
of petitioner for the services rendered by the latter in constructing a
building for a state university, notwithstanding the contracts violations
of the mandatory requirements of law, including the prior appropriation
of funds therefor. The Court, in resolving the case, cited the
unpublished Resolution in Royal Construction, wherein the Court
allowed the payment of the companys services sans the legal
requirements of prior appropriation.

In EPG Construction Co., et al v Hon. Gregorio R. Vigilar, the Court

again refused to stamp with legality DPWHs act of evading the
payment of contracts that had been completed, and from which the
government had already benefited. The Court held:
Although this Court agrees with respondents 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.

HEIRS OF RAMON C. GAITE, G.R. No. 177685

CYNTHIA GOROSTIZA GAITE and
RHOGEN BUILDERS, Present:
Petitioners,
CARPIO MORALES, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - NACHURA,*
BRION,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
SERENO, JJ.

THE PLAZA, INC. and FGU Promulgated:

INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Respondents. January 26, 2011

Under the principle of quantum meruit, a contractor is allowed to

recover the reasonable value of the thing or services rendered despite
the lack of a written contract, in order to avoid unjust
enrichment. Quantum meruit means that in an action for work and
labor, payment shall be made in such amount as the plaintif
reasonably deserves. To deny payment for a building almost completed
and already occupied would be to permit unjust enrichment at the
expense of the contractor.