Title
DHY Realty and Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, Special 6th Division
Case
G.R. No. 250539
Decision Date
Jan 11, 2023
DHY Realty disputed CIAC arbitration award, claiming improper notice; Supreme Court upheld award, ruling proper service and certiorari misuse.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 250539)

Facts and Background

On June 24, 2014, DHY Realty entered into a construction contract with Wing-An, under which Wing-An was to construct a facility in Pasig City. Disputes related to the construction ensued, particularly regarding payment for additional work. While initial fees were agreed upon, complications arose when DHY Realty delayed payments, which led to Wing-An imposing interest and demanding further compensation after additional work was performed. Following a series of correspondences and unsuccessful negotiations, Wing-An initiated arbitration proceedings with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) in June 2016.

CIAC Arbitration Proceedings

Wing-An filed a Request for Arbitration with CIAC, claiming a substantial amount for additional works not paid by DHY Realty. The CIAC issued notices to DHY Realty at what was believed to be its last known address, located in Makati. However, subsequent notices were undelivered, prompting the CIAC to request Wing-An to verify DHY Realty's address. Eventually, arbitration proceeded in absentia after multiple attempts of service were deemed unsuccessful.

CIAC Final Award

On May 9, 2017, the CIAC ruled in favor of Wing-An, ordering DHY Realty to compensate for the work completed, plus interest and fees. The CIAC held that due service was properly executed based on the address provided in DHY Realty’s last General Information Sheet (GIS) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Following this, Wing-An executed the proceedings to collect the awarded amount, leading to further disputes regarding the validity of the CIAC's decisions.

Court of Appeals Involvement

DHY Realty challenged the CIAC's Final Award in the Court of Appeals (CA) through a Petition for Review. However, due to issues with service of motions and notices, which were returned as undelivered, the CA allowed for substituted service. Ultimately, DHY Realty's contention that it was denied due process was dismissed. The CA affirmed the CIAC's Final Award and resolved that service was adequately conducted as required under existing rules.

Legal Issues Presented

The issues focalized on whether DHY Realty was properly served the relevant notices and whether their petition for certiorari was the correct remedy to challenge the CIAC’s and CA's decisions. It questioned the sufficiency of service of process and allegations of grave abuse of discretion against both the CIAC and CA.

Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled against DHY Realty's Petition for Certiorari, emphasizing that the remedy sought through Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was inappropriate in light of available appeal mech

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.