Case Digest (G.R. No. 180640)
Facts:
Hutama-Rsea Joint Operations, Inc., G.R. No. 180640, April 24, 2009, the Supreme Court Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J., writing for the Court.
Hutama-Rsea Joint Operations, Inc. (petitioner) and Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation (respondent) are Philippine corporations; petitioner was a subcontractor and respondent the general contractor/operator of the South Metro Manila Skyway Project. On September 25, 1996, the parties entered into an Engineering Procurement Construction Contract (EPCC) under which petitioner would construct Stage 1 of the Skyway Project for a contract price of US$369,510,304.00.
During construction petitioner submitted interim billings which respondent paid only in part. The Skyway opened December 15, 1999 and petitioner renewed demands for payment, including its final billing and an agreed Early Completion Bonus; respondent refused. After almost a year of negotiations without settlement, petitioner filed a Request for Arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC), docketed CIAC Case No. 17-2005, asserting money claims under the EPCC.
Respondent moved to dismiss in CIAC, contending the CIAC lacked jurisdiction because Clause 20.4 of the EPCC required prior referral of disputes to a Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) before arbitration — and no DAB had been constituted. The CIAC ruled on August 30, 2005 that it had jurisdiction and that compliance with Clause 20.4 was a factual matter to be determined at trial; it later denied respondent's urgent motion and motion for reconsideration (orders dated December 6 and December 12, 2005). Respondent then filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 92504).
On May 23, 2007 the Court of Appeals granted the petition, annulled the CIAC's December 12, 2005 order, and enjoined the CIAC from proceeding with CIAC Case No. 17-2005 until the dispute had been referred to and decided by the DAB as required by Sub-Clause 20.4 of the EPCC. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated November 16, 2007. Petitioner then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, raising the sole issue whether the CIAC has jurisdiction over CIAC Case No. 17-2005.
The CIAC's jurisdictional grant under Executive Order No. 1008 (the Construction Industry Arbitration Law) and its Rules (Section 1, Article III) were focal: E.O. No. 1008 vests the CIAC with original and exclusive jurisdiction over construction disputes so long as the parties...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the CIAC have jurisdiction over CIAC Case No. 17-2005?
- Is prior referral to the Dispute Adjudication Board under Clause 20.4 of the EPCC a condition precedent that bars CIAC from assuming ju...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)