Case Digest (G.R. No. 169095)
Facts:
Heunghwa Industry Co., Ltd. v. DJ Builders Corporation, G.R. No. 169095, December 08, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court. The petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeks to set aside the Court of Appeals' August 20, 2004 Decision and August 1, 2005 Resolution in CA‑G.R. SP Nos. 70001 and 71621.Heunghwa Industry Co., Ltd. (petitioner), a Korean corporation doing business in the Philippines, contracted with the DPWH to construct the Roxas‑Langogan Road and entered into a subcontract with DJ Builders Corporation (respondent) for earthwork and related works for Php113,228,918.00. The subcontract contained an arbitration clause. When respondent alleged non‑payment, it filed Civil Case No. 3421 (Complaint for Breach of Contract, Collection of Sum of Money, etc.) before the RTC of Puerto Princesa, Branch 51; petitioner answered with a counterclaim and asserted respondent caused work stoppage.
On September 27, 2000 the parties, through counsel, filed a Joint Motion to Submit Specific Issues to the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC)—listing five construction‑related issues—which the RTC granted. Petitioner thereafter filed a manifestation seeking to add further matters for CIAC referral; respondent filed a Request for Adjudication with CIAC. CIAC initially ordered dismissal of the RTC case insofar as the referred issues were concerned, directed respondent to seek adjudication, and denied a motion to declare petitioner in default; subsequent CIAC orders set conferences and denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss, while petitioner sought recall of the referral before the RTC.
The RTC on May 16, 2001 granted petitioner’s motion to recall the referral; on July 16, 2001 it granted respondent’s motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 3421 without prejudice (leaving petitioner’s counterclaim). The RTC later on March 13, 2002 declared the July 16, 2001 Order “without force and effect” and reinstated the case for hearing. CIAC, maintaining its view that it had jurisdiction, denied petitioner’s motions to dismiss and set hearings; on February 7 and April 2, 2002 CIAC conducted proceedings. CIAC ordered respondent to file a Revised Complaint (increasing the claim).
Both parties filed petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals—petitioner’s on April 5, 2002 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 70001) assailing CIAC’s denial to dismiss and seeking to enjoin CIAC; respondent’s on July 5, 2002 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 71621) assailing the RTC’s reinstatement and seeking to enjoin the RTC. The CA consolidated the petitions, denied relief to petitioner on procedural grounds (failure to file motion for reconsideration of CIAC’s March 22, 2002 order) and on the merits, holding CIAC had jurisdiction by virtue of the arbitration clause and the joint referral, and citing National Irrigation Authority v. Court of Appeals. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration to the CA was denied.
After CA a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the CIAC fatal to its petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals?
- Is an order denying a motion to dismiss by the CIAC a proper subject of a petition for certiorari?
- Did the CIAC have jurisdiction to hear the dispute despite petitioner’s claim that its counsel lacked authority to agree to arbitration?
- Should the CIAC proceedings be remanded so petitioner may pres...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)