Short answer. Yes. Article 1722 says that if the work cannot be finished because of orders from the employer, through no fault of the contractor, the contractor has a right to an equitable part of the compensation proportionally to the work done, and reimbursement for proper expenses made. Your stop order does not erase what you owe for work already done.
What the law says
the latter has a right to an equitable part of the compensation proportionally to the work done, and reimbursement for proper expenses made
Civil Code, Article 1722 — Work Halted by Employer's Material or Orders. Read the full provision →
Stopping the work does not cancel the bill
Article 1722 protects a contractor whose progress is halted by the very person who hired him. It provides that if the work cannot be completed because of a defect in the material furnished by the employer, or because of orders from the employer, without any fault on the part of the contractor, the latter has a right to an equitable part of the compensation proportionally to the work done, and reimbursement for proper expenses made. So when your own orders are what stopped the job, the contractor does not simply absorb the loss. You owe two things: a fair, proportional share of the agreed price, and repayment of the proper expenses he incurred.
Why the fault line matters
The article turns on a single condition: the stoppage happened without any fault on the part of the contractor. That is what shifts the cost to you. The provision names two employer-side causes, a defect in material you supplied, or your orders, both of which are things the contractor did not control. If the work stalled because the contractor was slow, negligent or in breach, this article is not his shield, and a different set of rules on the contractor's own default would apply. But where the reason the job stopped traces back to you, the law treats the interruption as your responsibility to pay for.
What 'equitable' and 'proportional' mean for the amount
You are not necessarily paying the full contract price, and that is the point of the words 'equitable' and 'proportionally.' The compensation is measured against how much of the work was actually accomplished when it stopped, not the whole job, and the expenses recoverable are the proper ones, those reasonably incurred for the work. This keeps the settlement fair in both directions: the contractor is paid for what he did and what he reasonably spent, but he does not collect the entire price for a job left unfinished. Valuing the completed portion is usually where the parties disagree, so records of progress matter a great deal.
How this differs from calling off the job entirely
It helps to see where this sits among the construction rules. This article addresses work that cannot be completed because of your orders or defective materials, and it pays the contractor for the part done plus proper expenses. That is narrower than the owner's separate right to withdraw from the work at will, which carries a heavier indemnity that can include the contractor's lost profit. If your instruction merely paused or obstructed the work, this proportional remedy fits; if you have decided to end the project outright, the wider withdrawal rule and its larger bill may be what governs. Which one applies changes the sum owed.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- In the Matter of Urgent Petition for the Release of Prisoners on Humanitarian Grounds, G.R. No. 252117, July 28, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →