Title
Excellent Quality Apparel, Inc. vs. Win Multi Rich Builders, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 175048
Decision Date
Feb 10, 2009
A construction contract dispute arose between Excellent Quality Apparel and Multi-Rich Builders. Win Multi-Rich Builders, incorporated later, sued for payment, but the Supreme Court ruled Win lacked legal standing and jurisdiction belonged to arbitration, ordering the return of garnished funds.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 221624)

Key Dates

Contract Execution: 26 March 1996
Completion of Construction: 27 November 1996
Incorporation of Win Multi-Rich Builders, Inc.: 20 February 1997
Filing of Money-Claim Suit and Attachment: 26 January 2004

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution (judicial power, access to courts)
Rule 3, Section 2, Rules of Court (Real Party in Interest)
Executive Order No. 1008 (Creation of Construction Industry Arbitration Commission – CIAC)
Republic Act No. 9285 (Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004)

Facts of the Contract

On 26 March 1996, Excellent Quality Apparel, Inc. and Multi-Rich Builders (a sole proprietorship then owned by Mr. Chua) entered into a construction contract for a garment factory at CPEZA, to be completed within 150 calendar days. Article XIX provided for binding arbitration before a three-member Arbitration Committee under Republic Act No. 876.

Incorporation and Standing of Respondent

After project completion, Wilson G. Chua incorporated Win Multi-Rich Builders, Inc. on 20 February 1997. In January 2004, Win sued Excellent Quality for ₱8,634,448.20, claiming unpaid obligations under the contract.

Filing of Suit and Attachment Proceedings

Win obtained a writ of attachment against petitioner’s properties on 10 February 2004, posting a surety bond. Sheriff’s attempted service prompted petitioner to deposit a PCIBank check for the disputed amount as guarantee. Petitioner filed an omnibus motion denying liability and challenging RTC jurisdiction based on the arbitration clause.

Challenges to Jurisdiction and Standing

Petitioner discovered that the contract was originally with a sole proprietorship, not the corporation. It moved to dismiss Win’s suit for lack of legal personality and jurisdiction. RTC denied these motions, and Win secured release of the garnished funds from the court.

Analysis of Real Party in Interest under Rule 3, Section 2

• A sole proprietorship lacks separate juridical personality and cannot sue or be sued in its own name.
• Win admitted that Multi-Rich Builders was a sole proprietorship at contract execution and produced no deed of assignment or evidence of asset/liability transfer.
• Without proof of succession, Win could not stand in the shoes of its predecessor to enforce the receivables.

Arbitration Clause and Exclusive CIAC Jurisdiction

• The contract’s arbitration clause and E.O. 1008 vest original and exclusive jurisdiction in CIAC over construction disputes, regardless of monetary or non-monetary nature.
• Under RA 9285, an RTC must dismiss a constru




...continue reading

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