Case Digest (G.R. No. 250539)
Facts:
DHY Realty & Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals-Special Sixth Division, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, Sheriff of the Construction Industry Authority of the Philippines, and Wing-An Construction Development Corporation, G.R. No. 250539, January 11, 2023, Supreme Court Third Division, Singh, J., writing for the Court.The parties contracted on June 24, 2014: Wing-An Construction Development Corporation (claimant/respondent below) agreed to build a warehouse for DHY Realty & Development Corporation (respondent/petitioner below). The contract contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose over additional works (notably a high fence) and unpaid billings; Wing-An demanded payment and threatened arbitration after unsuccessful demands.
On September 29, 2016 Wing‑An filed a Complaint and Request for Arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). The CIAC Executive Director sent a letter‑notice dated September 30, 2016 to DHY Realty’s address shown in Wing‑An’s pleading (the “Makati Address”). The CIAC then proceeded to nominate arbitrators, set a preliminary conference, and conducted hearings. Several subsequent communications were returned by courier with reasons like “consignee unknown” or “returned shipment due to move out”; the CIAC thereupon directed Wing‑An to determine DHY Realty’s correct address. Wing‑An supplied DHY Realty’s Amended Articles of Incorporation and latest General Information Sheet (GIS) dated September 22, 2016 reflecting the Makati Address.
Only Wing‑An appeared at the February 17, 2017 preliminary conference and at the March 31, 2017 evidentiary hearing; DHY Realty and its president, Domingo H. Yap, did not participate. The CIAC Tribunal issued a Final Award on May 9, 2017, ordering DHY Realty to pay Php9,160,000 plus interest, attorney’s fees and arbitration costs, and denying exemplary damages. Wing‑An filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) on June 21, 2017.
The CA allowed substituted service of the petition for review after several failed attempts at personal service and by mail, deemed DHY Realty to have waived filing a comment when it failed to do so after show‑cause orders, and on January 29, 2019 denied Wing‑An’s petition for review and affirmed the CIAC Final Award. The CIAC issued a writ of execution (Aug. 15, 2019) and notice of garnishment (Oct. 8, 2019). DHY Realty moved to quash and lift garnishment (Oct. 30, 2019); the CIAC denied relief on Dec. 4, 2019 reasoning its jurisdiction had terminated after the CA decision and that any remedy must be sought in court.
DHY Realty then filed this Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari (Dec. 10, 2019) in the Supreme Court, alleging lack of proper service of CIAC notices because its true principal office was in Pasig (the project site) and not the Makati Address, resulting in denial of due process and grave ab...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to assail the CIAC and CA issuances in this case?
- Was DHY Realty properly served with the CIAC Tribunal’s notices pertaining to the arbitratio...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)