G.R. No. 147925-26 - Uy vs. Public Estates Authority

Petitioner: Elpidio S. Uy, doing business under the name and style of Edison Development & Construction (EDC).
Respondent: Public Estates Authority (PEA).

The case originated with decisions by the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) involving disputes on contractual obligations under a Landscaping and Construction Agreement.
Subsequent decisions by the Court of Appeals and a prior ruling by this Court addressed the issues raised in CIAC cases.
Petitioner Uy filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration while PEA filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the June 8, 2009 Decision.

Uy challenged the computation of damages for the equipment kept on standby due to delay in the turnover of work areas.
He argued that the computation used the Association of Carriers and Equipment Lessors (ACEL) rate based on an average total rate rather than reflecting the actual number of equipment deployed.

Uy contended that he should be reimbursed for the additional cost incurred for hauling topsoil.
He based his claim on the existence of PEA’s written consent and the necessity of such expenditure for the consummation of the project.

He argued for the recovery of expenses incurred for mobilizing water trucks.
His argument was founded on the claim that PEA breached its obligations under the contract.

Uy sought the lifting of an injunction that prevented him from recovering claims under CIAC Case No. 03-2001.
He claimed that these claims were separate and distinct from those in the case at bar.

PEA contended that the factual findings and conclusions by the CIAC regarding the arbitrational award had become final and executory.
They noted multiple writs of execution supporting the implementation of the CIAC award.

PEA argued that Uy’s monetary claims had already been resolved in prior decisions, particularly citing G.R. Nos. 147933-34.
They maintained that new claims could not supersede the res judicata effect of the earlier awards.

Whether the Court erred in using an average ACEL factor rate rather than computing standby equipment cost by taking into account the actual number of deployed equipment.
Whether petitioner should be reimbursed for the additional hauling distance cost for topsoil, given the alleged written consent from PEA.
Whether petitioner should recover the costs incurred for the mobilization of water trucks on the ground that PEA breached its contractual obligations.
Whether the injunction issued in CIAC Case No. 03-2001 should have been lifted as it involved claims that were separate from those in the case at bar.

Whether the CIAC’s factual findings and conclusions, as well as the arbitral award, should be given finality and considered executed.
Whether the prior implementation of the CIAC award (via multiple writs of execution) precludes any further recalculations or claims made by petitioner Uy under the current proceedings.