Case Digest (G.R. No. 102636) Core Legal Reasoning
Core Legal Reasoning
Facts:
In the case of Fluor Daniel, Inc. - Philippines, Petitioner vs. Fil-Estate Properties, Inc., Respondent (G.R. No. 212895), the disputes stem from an arbitration proceeding initiated on April 26, 2000, under CIAC Case No. 42-98. The Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) issued a Notice of Award in favor of Fluor Daniel, Inc. - Philippines (FDIP), ordering Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (FEPI) to pay FDIP the amount of PHP 13,579,599.57 plus interest. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on December 21, 2001, and again by the Supreme Court on June 18, 2008, with the judgment attaining finality on April 17, 2009.
Following the affirmation of the arbitral award, CIAC issued a writ of execution. FEPI proposed offering real properties to satisfy its judgment debt, but FDIP rejected this offer, asserting that, as a foreign corporation, it could not own real property in the Philippines. Upon FDIP's further inquiry, it was found that FEPI o
... Case Digest (G.R. No. 102636) Expanded Legal Reasoning
Expanded Legal Reasoning
Facts:
- Background and arbitration
- On April 26, 2000, the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) issued a Notice of Award in CIAC Case No. 42-98 (Fluor Daniel, Inc. - Phils. v. Fil-Estate Properties, Inc.), attaching a Decision ordering respondent Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (FEPI) to pay petitioner Fluor Daniel, Inc. — Philippines (FDIP) the amount of P13,579,599.57 plus interest.
- The CIAC decision underwent appellate review: the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed on December 21, 2001; the Supreme Court (SC) affirmed on June 18, 2008; and finality was reached on April 17, 2009 upon issuance of an Entry of Judgment. A writ of execution issued thereafter.
- Post-judgment enforcement attempts and events
- FEPI offered real properties in satisfaction of the judgment debt but FDIP refused such properties because FDIP is a foreign-owned corporation and, under Philippine law, could not own real property in the Philippines.
- FDIP discovered and reported that FEPI owned shares in Fil-Estate Industrial Park, Inc. (FEIP). The shares were garnished in July 2012. On December 7, 2012, those FEIP shares were auctioned and awarded to FDIP as highest bidder.
- FDIP later learned that FEIP (the corporate issuer) had ceased operations, rendering the purchased shares essentially worthless. FDIP refused to pay the sheriff’s commission and costs; consequently the corresponding certificate of sale was not executed and the sale was not consummated.
- Proceedings before the CIAC and appellate courts
- FDIP filed a Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution on July 24, 2013, seeking further execution remedies after the failed auction; the CIAC denied the motion in an Order dated December 6, 2013.
- FDIP filed a motion for reconsideration on December 27, 2013. The CIAC issued a Declaration on January 27, 2014 reiterating the denial of the motion for an alias writ.
- FDIP sought relief from the CA: on February 10, 2014 it filed a Motion for Additional Time to File Petition for Certiorari, requesting an additional 15 days (until February 25, 2014). FDIP’s petition for certiorari was dated February 19, 2014.
- Court of Appeals’ disposition and parties’ contentions
- On February 24, 2014, the CA issued a Resolution denying FDIP’s Motion for Additional Time, concluding there were no exceptional and meritorious circumstances warranting extension; the CA remarked FDIP should have used the 60-day reglementary period to investigate FEPI’s assets and found no showing that a motion for reconsideration had been timely filed before the CIAC or that there was no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
- The CA noted FDIP had filed a petition for certiorari “as noted” in a February 28, 2014 entry; FDIP moved for reconsideration on March 20, 2014. On June 3, 2014, the CA denied FDIP’s motion for reconsideration, reiterating its earlier findings.
- FDIP’s arguments before the CA and SC: (a) exceptional circumstances warranted an extension because (i) CIAC rules precluded motion for reconsideration as a remedy (FDIP contended no plain, speedy, adequate remedy existed), (ii) manifest injustice would result if execution remedies were exhausted without remedy after more than a decade, (iii) FDIP needed time to investigate FEPI’s assets and to find suitable assets rather than accept prohibited real property, and (iv) only after investigation did FDIP realize it needed other litigation remedies; (b) the motion for reconsideration was filed inadvertently by former counsel who purportedly thought they were still engaged.
- FEPI’s opposition: (a) FDIP should have promptly used the 60-day period; (b) FDIP showed disregard for procedure by filing both a motion for reconsideration and a certiorari petition; (c) FDIP failed to do due diligence before buying auctioned shares (caveat emptor); (d) CIAC properly denied alias writ relief because FDIP could not frustrate an auction sale by refusing to pay sheriff’s fees.
- Relief sought in the Supreme Court
- FDIP petitioned the Supreme Court for review under Rule 45, assailing the CA Resolutions of February 24, 2014 and June 3, 2014 denying its Motion for Additional Time to File Petition for Certiorari and requesting reinstatement and admission of its certiorari petition for determination on the merits.
Issues:
- Principal issue
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying FDIP’s Motion for Additional Time to File Petition for Certiorari — i.e., whether exceptional and meritorious circumstances existed to justify extending the 60-day reglementary period for filing a Rule 65 petition.
- Subsidiary/miscellaneous issues implicated
- Whether FDIP’s filing of a motion for reconsideration before the CIAC (allegedly prohibited under CIAC rules) and a petition for certiorari before the CA constituted procedural irregularity or grave procedural fault deserving denial of extension.
- Whether the factual and legal disputes concerning the validity/consummation of the auction sale, value/worthlessness of FEIP shares, and entitlement to an alias writ of execution present mixed questions of fact and law better resolved on the merits by the Court of Appeals.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)