Case Digest (G.R. No. 160215)
Facts:
Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation v. National Irrigation Administration, G.R. No. 160215, November 10, 2004, First Division, Ynarez‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation (Hydro) contracted with respondent National Irrigation Administration (NIA) in August 1978 for the main civil works of the Magat River Multi‑Purpose Project (Contract MPI‑C‑2). The contract had both peso and US dollar components; the parties executed Amendment No. 1 (Nov. 6, 1978), a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (Apr. 9, 1980), and a Supplemental MOA expanding use of the foreign currency allocation to include construction materials and items to be incorporated in permanent works. Hydro substantially completed the project in 1982 and final acceptance occurred on February 14, 1984.During performance the peso depreciated against the US dollar. Hydro’s avails of the foreign‑currency component, NIA’s dollar charges and peso payments produced a final reconciliation showing Hydro entitled to a foreign exchange differential of US$1,353,771.79 (approx. P10,898,391.17). Hydro presented the claim to NIA on August 12, 1983; after recurring communications NIA’s Administrator, Federico N. Alday, Jr., denied the claim “with finality” in a letter dated January 6, 1987 (received by Hydro January 27, 1987). Hydro notified NIA of its desire to arbitrate on February 18, 1987 (received Feb. 19, 1987).
Hydro filed a request for arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) on December 7, 1994 (docketed CIAC Case No. 18‑94). NIA answered, raised defenses including laches and estoppel, and moved to dismiss for lack of CIAC jurisdiction — a motion CIAC deferred and ultimately denied after receiving evidence. CIAC rendered decision in favor of Hydro on June 10, 1997.
NIA sought relief in the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Review on Appeal (CA‑G.R. SP No. 44527). Meanwhile NIA previously filed an original certiorari petition in the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 37180) and then a special civil action for certiorari in this Court (G.R. No. 129169) attacking CIAC’s jurisdiction; this Court dismissed G.R. No. 129169 (affirming CIAC’s jurisdiction) and directed the Court of Appeals to proceed, the judgment becoming final on December 15, 1999. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed CIAC on October 29, 2002 (and denied Hydro’s motion for reconsideration Sept. 24, 2003), hol...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Hydro’s claim for the foreign exchange differential prescribe such that CIAC lacked jurisdiction to decide it?
- Was NIA guilty of forum‑shopping and was its Certification of Non‑Forum Shopping defective because it was signed only by counsel?
- If not prescribed, should Hydro’s foreign exchange differential claim be denied because it is contrary to R.A. No. 529 or computed at a fixed exchange rate instead of the prevailing rate?
- Were NIA’s conduct and prior representations sufficient to estop it from denying Hydro’s entitlement and...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)