G.R. No. 129169 - National Irrigation Administration vs. Court of Appeals

National Irrigation Administration (NIA) conducted a competitive bidding in August 1978 and awarded Contract MPI-C-2 to Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation (HYDRO) for construction of the main civil works of the Magat River Multi-Purpose Project.
The contract provided payment partly in Philippine pesos and partly in U.S. dollars.
HYDRO substantially completed the works in 1982; NIA gave final acceptance in 1984.
HYDRO later claimed an account receivable from NIA representing the dollar rate differential of price escalation under the contract and, after administrative efforts failed, filed a Request for Adjudication with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) on 7 December 1994.

HYDRO nominated six arbitrators; CIAC appointed Engr. Lauro M. Cruz as HYDRO's nominee.
On 6 January 1995 NIA filed an Answer raising lack of jurisdiction, laches and estoppel, and on the same date filed a Compliance nominating six arbitrators; CIAC appointed Atty. Custodio O. Parlade as NIA's nominee and NIA made a counterclaim for damages and costs.
The two party-nominated arbitrators appointed CPA Joven B. Joaquin as Chairman of the Arbitration Panel.
The parties were required to exchange evidence and were furnished a draft Terms of Reference.
At the preliminary conference NIA, through Atty. Joy C. Legaspi of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, stated it could not admit genuineness of HYDRO's documentary evidence because NIA's records had been destroyed and requested inspection of originals, which HYDRO agreed to provide.
The parties agreed on issues, scheduled hearings, and dates for submission of simultaneous memoranda.

On 13 March 1995 NIA filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging lack of jurisdiction on grounds that E.O. No. 1008 (promulgated 4 February 1985) creating CIAC could not operate retroactively to cover a contract entered in 1978 and completed in 1982, and that the parties did not agree to submit disputes to CIAC.
NIA relied on Tesco Services, Inc. v. Hon. Abraham Vera, et al. (209 SCRA 440 [1992]) to argue lack of CIAC jurisdiction when parties’ arbitration clause did not expressly name CIAC.
On 11 April 1995 the arbitral body deferred resolution of the Motion to Dismiss and resolved to proceed with hearings on the merits because NIA's grounds did not appear indubitable.
NIA moved for reconsideration; CIAC denied reconsideration and reiterated its jurisdiction under E.O. No. 1008, directing hearings to proceed as scheduled.

On 26 May 1996 NIA filed an original action in the Court of Appeals for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for restraining order and/or injunction to annul the CIAC orders for being issued without or in excess of jurisdiction.
NIA advanced grounds including (a) CIAC had no authority because E.O. No. 1008 had no retroactive effect; (b) disputes should be governed by the law in force when contract was executed (citing GC No. 25, Art. 2046 Civil Code, and R.A. No. 876); (c) E.O. No. 1008 is substantive, not procedural; (d) an Auditor General indorsement becomes final if not seasonably appealed; (e) NIA timely raised jurisdictional issue and did not waive it; and (f) jurisdiction is determined by statute in force at commencement of the action.

(Subscriber-Only)

Whether NIA's filing of an original action for certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court, before the Supreme Court was procedurally proper given the availability of appeal under Rule 45 from the Court of Appeals Resolutions.
Whether NIA had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal such that certiorari was improper.

Whether CIAC had jurisdiction to entertain HYDRO's claim that arose from a contract executed in 1978 and completed in 1982, given that E.O. No. 1008 was promulgated in 1985.
Whether CIAC could acquire jurisdiction where only one party (HYDRO) filed a request for arbitration, absent a mutual submission specifically to CIAC.
Whether E.O. No. 1008 is substantive and therefore cannot operate to vest jurisdiction over pre-1985 contracts.
Whether reliance on Tesco Services, Inc. v. Vera cont...(Subscriber-Only)