Letters of Credit and Construction Contracts: Defining Liability in Tripartite Agreements

---

Construction projects often involve multiple parties, and when financing is arranged through letters of credit, the question of who owes what to whom can become complex. A 2005 Supreme Court decision in Mea Builders, Inc. v. Court of Appeals clarifies the limits of a bank's liability in a tripartite agreement involving a contractor, a project owner, and a financing bank. The case is instructive for contractors and lenders alike, as it underscores the importance of reading agreements strictly and documenting claims properly.

The Facts of the Case

In 1982, MEA Builders, Inc. (MEA) entered into a construction contract with Capital Resources Corporation (CRC) to build housing units in Parañaque. The contract price was payable partly in cash through stand-by letters of credit from a bank.

Shortly after, MEA, CRC, and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) signed a tripartite agreement. Under this agreement, Metrobank would issue stand-by letters of credit to cover the cash portion of payments for completed housing units. The issuance was conditioned on the completion of units, as attested by a Certificate of Completion signed by the contractor and accepted by the owner's representative, a Metrobank representative, and the Home Financing Corporation (HFC).

MEA later secured a P3 million advance from Metrobank, covered by a promissory note and a suretyship agreement signed by MEA's officers. When MEA completed 45 housing units, Metrobank applied the payments to partially liquidate the advance. MEA later defaulted on the remaining balance of the promissory note, prompting Metrobank to file a collection suit. MEA counterclaimed, arguing that the arrangement was not a simple loan but an advance payment scheme tied to the construction project.

The Issue

The central issue was whether Metrobank's liability under the tripartite agreement extended beyond the value of completed units covered by certificates of completion. MEA also questioned the Court of Appeals' reduction of the damages awarded by the trial court.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court denied MEA's petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that Metrobank's obligation was strictly limited to what the tripartite agreement provided: payment for completed housing units attested by the required certificates of completion.

The Court noted that the trial court had erred in including amounts for a separate horizontal development project in Metrobank's liability. Metrobank was a "complete stranger" to that project, and the cost of filling materials advanced by MEA was chargeable to CRC, not the bank. The Court also upheld the deletion of P9 million in actual and compensatory damages, as MEA failed to prove such damages with reasonable certainty. A sweeping testimony about unrealized profits was insufficient. Attorney's fees were likewise struck down for lack of justification.

The Court also pointed out a procedural lapse: the petition's verification and certification against forum shopping were signed by counsel, not the petitioners, which alone could have caused dismissal.

Key Principles on Bank Liability

The decision reinforces several important rules:

• Strict construction of agreements. A bank's liability under a tripartite agreement is limited to what the agreement expressly states. It does not automatically extend to all related projects or costs.
• Conditions must be met. Letters of credit are issued only upon satisfaction of stated conditions, such as the submission of certificates of completion.
• Damages require proof. Actual or compensatory damages must be established with a reasonable degree of certainty, not through vague testimony.
• Attorney's fees are the exception. They are awarded only when the case falls under the exceptional circumstances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code.

Practical Takeaways

• Read tripartite agreements carefully. Contractors should know exactly what a bank is obligated to pay and under what conditions. If a project has multiple phases, ensure each is covered by a separate or amended agreement.
• Document everything. Certificates of completion, progress reports, and payment records are critical. Without them, claims for payment or damages may fail.
• Keep separate projects separate. A bank financing one project is not automatically liable for another, even if the same parties are involved.
• Prove damages with evidence. Claims for unrealized profits or consequential damages need concrete documentation, not just oral testimony.
• Follow procedural rules. Verify that petitions and certifications are signed by the proper parties to avoid dismissal on technical grounds.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.