Contiguous/Adjacent Contract

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Contiguous/Adjacent Contract

Post by elphaba on Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:06 am

Can someone please confirm if the following view on Contiguous or Adjacent Contract is correct:

1. The Philippine Law Dictionary by Frederico B. Moreno defines "Adjacent" as follow:
Adjacent the word adjacent does not mean contiguous, but on the contrary is frequently used in contradistinction to it, and is generally defined as equivalent to "close" or "nearby" -- Catholic church v. Hastings, 5 Phil 705
2. Black Law's dictionary 9th Edition by Bryan A. Garner defines "Adjacent" as follows:
Adjacent. Lying near near or close to but not necessarily touching;
3. Section 54.2(f) of the IRR-A of the R.A. 9184 provides that: with respect to item (e) of Section 53 of the Act and IRR-A, the terms "adjacent" and "contiguous" shall be considered synonymous and shall mean that the projects concerned shall be in actual physical contact with each other.
4. said provision (54.2.f) however is deleted in the Revised IRR of R.A. 9184

Is it correct to say that the removal of the specific definition of contiguous/adjacent in the Revised IRR, the above leagl definitions may be relied on such that where the building is close to or nearby, but not necessarily touching the building subject of original contract, works on the same may be undertaken through negotiation under Section 53.4 of the IRR, provided the other conditions are complied with?

elphaba
New Member
New Member

Female Number of posts : 8
Company/Agency : ZCMC
Occupation/Designation : BAC Secretariat
Registration date : 2014-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Contiguous/Adjacent Contract

Post by engrjhez® on Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:52 pm

elphaba wrote:Can someone please confirm if the following view on Contiguous or Adjacent Contract is correct:

1. The Philippine Law Dictionary by Frederico B. Moreno defines "Adjacent" as follow:
Adjacent the word adjacent does not mean contiguous, but on the contrary is frequently used in contradistinction to it, and is generally defined as equivalent to "close" or "nearby" -- Catholic church v. Hastings, 5 Phil 705
2. Black Law's dictionary 9th Edition by Bryan A. Garner defines "Adjacent" as follows:
Adjacent. Lying near near or close to but not necessarily touching;
3. Section 54.2(f) of the IRR-A of the R.A. 9184 provides that: with respect to item (e) of Section 53 of the Act and IRR-A, the terms "adjacent" and "contiguous" shall be considered synonymous and shall mean that the projects concerned shall be in actual physical contact with each other.
4. said provision (54.2.f) however is deleted in the Revised IRR of R.A. 9184

Is it correct to say that the removal of the specific definition of contiguous/adjacent in the Revised IRR, the above leagl definitions may be relied on such that where the building is close to or nearby, but not necessarily touching the building subject of original contract, works on the same may be undertaken through negotiation under Section 53.4 of the IRR, provided the other conditions are complied with?

Yes. Take note also that the terms "adjacent" or "contiguous" does not only refer to physical relations as to nearness but also to proximity with non-physical objects. This is because Sec.53.4 may be used not only for infrastructure projects but to consulting services as well. The century old case of the Roman Apostolic Church v. Hastings (supra) is still instructive.

Smile
avatar
engrjhez®
Grand Master
Grand Master

Male Number of posts : 2480
Age : 39
Company/Agency : City Government of Bacoor [Region IV-A, Province of Cavite]
Occupation/Designation : Office of the City Legal Service (OCLS) / Certified National Trainer - PhilGEPS
Registration date : 2008-10-30

http://www.bacoor.gov.ph

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum