G.R. No. 250539 - DHY Realty and Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, Special 6th Division

Petitioner DHY Realty & Development Corporation (DHY Realty) and respondent Wing-An Construction Development Corporation (Wing-An) entered into a Construction Contract Agreement on June 24, 2014.
Under the contract, Wing-An was obligated to construct a warehouse building with a canteen for DHY Realty at M. Eusebio Avenue, Barangay San Miguel, Pasig City.

During construction, Wing-An proposed the erection of a high fence (approximately 114.11 x 2.0 meters) near the canteen with a contract price of PHP 12,284,069.54, which DHY Realty approved.
A dispute arose when Wing-An demanded payment for the work completed, while DHY Realty insisted that the fence’s height be increased by 1.5 meters.
Despite Wing-An’s agreement to perform additional work and receipt of an initial PHP 600,000.00, DHY Realty’s non-compliance with the full payment led to escalating demands, including the imposition of a 3% monthly interest on the unpaid balance.

A series of letters and meetings ensued between the parties concerning the additional works, billing, and interest claims.
Several demand letters were exchanged by Wing-An (notably on October 4, 2014; January 20, 2015; June 22, 2015; July 12, 2015; and October 27, 2015) without reaching a settlement.
DHY Realty, represented by its President Domingo H. Yap, contested the interest rate and warned of liquidated damages if interest was imposed.

Wing-An filed a Complaint and Request for Arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) on September 29, 2016, alleging claims for PHP 15,864,178.01 (for additional works, change orders, and variation orders), exemplary damages, filing fees, and arbitrators’ fees.
Notice of arbitration was sent via a Letter-Notice on September 30, 2016 to Yap at the Makati Address stated in Wing-An’s Complaint.
The CIAC received nominations for arbitrators from Wing-An’s side and proceeded with the arbitration despite subsequent issues regarding the proper service of notices.

The CIAC issued an Order on January 10, 2017, setting the case for a preliminary conference; subsequent orders confirmed that the Letter-Notice had been received at the address provided.
Wing-An was the only party represented at the preliminary conference (February 17, 2017), evidentiary hearings (March 31, 2017), and subsequent submissions.
The CIAC Tribunal rendered a Final Award on May 9, 2017, ordering DHY Realty to pay for the extra works, attorney’s fees, and arbitration costs while denying claims for exemplary damages.

Wing-An filed a Petition for Review challenging the CIAC’s award before the CA.
The CA handled procedural issues regarding service of its resolutions including substituted service, given difficulties in personal or mailed service to DHY Realty at its Makati Address.
Ultimately, on January 29, 2019, the CA rendered a Decision denying Wing-An’s Petition for Review, thus affirming the CIAC’s Final Award and related issuances.

Subsequent to the CA’s decision, the CIAC executed the Final Award through a Writ of Execution (August 15, 2019) and Notice of Garnishment (October 8, 2019).
DHY Realty later filed its Formal Entry of Appearance with an Omnibus Motion to quash the Writ of Execution and lift the Notice of Garnishment.
DHY Realty contended that it never received proper notices because the CIAC relied on an erroneous address (Makati Address) when its principal office was allegedly in Pasig, and that Wing-An acted in bad faith by not disclosing the correct address.
On December 10, 2019, DHY Realty filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that it was denied due process because of the alleged invalid service of CIAC notices and, by extension, the CA’s affirmance of the CIAC award.

DHY Realty argued that improper service of CIAC notices (using the Makati Address derived from its GIS and AOI) deprived it of the opportunity to participate, thereby violating due process.
Wing-An maintained that proper reliance was placed on DHY Realty’s latest GIS and AOI, which correctly indicated its principal office address at the time, and thus the arbitration and subsequent proceedings were valid.
Wing-An also contended that DHY Realty did not exhaust its available remedies (such as filing a motion for reconsideration) before resorting to a Rule 65 petition.
Additional submissions were made by counsel of the involved parties, including a comment by Amon (the CIAC’s executing sheriff) and a separate appearance by the CIAC regarding its non-participation in the review proceedings.

Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the correct and available remedy to challenge the alleged invalidity of the CIAC and CA issuances, including the CIAC’s Final Award and the CA’s subsequent decisions.
Whether DHY Realty complied with the prerequisite of filing a motion for reconsideration before resorting to a Rule 65 petition.

Whether DHY Realty was properly served with the CIAC Tribunal’s notices and communications regarding the arbitration proceedings, particularly considering the alleged erroneous use of its Makati Address versus its claimed Pasig Address.
Whether the CIAC’s reliance on business documents (such as the General Information Sheet and the Articles of Incorporation) was sufficient to establish the proper address for service under the applicable CIAC Rules and Resolution No. 11-2010.