Case Digest (G.R. No. 250539)
Facts:
DHY Realty & Development Corporation and Wing-An Construction Development Corporation entered into a Construction Contract Agreement on June 24, 2014, containing an arbitration clause before the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) for disputes arising from the contract. Wing-An claimed additional works and related billings, but DHY Realty allegedly did not pay, prompting Wing-An to file a Request for Arbitration with CIAC on September 29, 2016 and to seek payment of PHP 15,864,178.01 plus interest and damages.
CIAC proceeded after DHY Realty and its president Yap did not participate, concluding that DHY Realty was sufficiently served through the “Makati Address” stated in Wing-An’s Complaint and as supported by DHY Realty’s General Information Sheet (GIS) filed September 22, 2016. CIAC issued a Final Award on May 8–9, 2017, which the Court of Appeals affirmed on January 29, 2019, and CIAC later issued a Writ of Execution and Notice of Garnishment. DHY Realty then filed a Petition for Certiorari on December 10, 2019, alleging lack of due process due to improper service using the Makati Address instead of its alleged “Pasig Address.”
Issues:
- Whether a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 was the correct remedy to challenge the assailed CIAC and Court of Appeals issuances.
- Whether DHY Realty was properly served with CIAC’s notices pertaining to the arbitration proceedings.
Ruling:
The petition was dismissed, and the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and CIAC issuances, including the Final Award, Writ of Execution, and Notice of Garnishment.
The Court held that DHY Realty’s Rule 65 petition failed to satisfy the stringent requirements for certiorari, and that, on the merits, CIAC had duly complied with the rules on notice by relying on DHY Realty’s last known address under its GIS, with the crucial initial Letter-Notice being duly delivered.
Ratio:
On the procedural issue, the Court ruled that Rule 65 certiorari is an extraordinary remedy requiring, among others, a showing of grave abuse of discretion and the absence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court found that DHY Realty did not file a motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals, and that it could have pursued available remedies (including appeal mechanisms) to assail the Court of Appeals rulings. The Court also emphasized that mere errors of law and judgment do not justify Rule 65 review.
On the substantive issue, the Court applied the 2016 CIAC Rules and Resolution No. 11-2010 on delivery of CIAC communications, concluding that once the initial notice was properly delivered to the last known address, CIAC could proceed despite respondent’s non-participation. The Court found that the initial Letter-Notice was not returned and that DHY Realty did not provide evidence that it was not successfully delivered to the Makati Address, which matched the principal office address in its latest GIS filed with the SEC. The Court further held that reliance on the GIS was reasonable given its sworn and reliable character, and that the Court of Appeals likewise acted consistently with the rules on substituted service after failed attempts at personal and mail service.
Doctrine:
- A Rule 65 petition is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary appeal remedies, absent strict compliance with its jurisdictional and procedural requirements.
- (Get Pro to unlock 9 more doctrines)