Title
Global Medical Center of Laguna, Inc. vs. Ross Systems International, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 230112
Decision Date
May 11, 2021
Construction dispute over withheld 2% CWT on progress billings; SC upheld CA ruling, denied RSII's claim for additional payment, ordered GMCLI to issue BIR Form 2307 for tax credit.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 230112)

Contract and Origin of Dispute

– GMCLI contracted RSII to build its Cabuyao, Laguna hospital for ₱248.5 million.
– Contract provided for 15% down payment; balance paid monthly based on work accomplished.
– Contractor’s invoices (Progress Billings 1–15) were subject to a 2% Creditable Withholding Tax (CWT) to be withheld by GMCLI.
– GMCLI failed to withhold CWT on Billings 1–14 and in April 2015 withheld and remitted 2% on the cumulative amount of Billings 1–15, prompting dispute.

Proceedings Before the CIAC

– RSII filed arbitration on August 6, 2015, claiming improper CWT withholding and unpaid balance on Progress Billing 15.
– CIAC Final Award (May 10, 2016):
• CIAC has exclusive jurisdiction.
• GMCLI erred in withholding and remitting 2% CWT on the cumulative amount across Billings 1–15.
• RSII not entitled to release of the ₱4,884,778.92 withheld.
• No moral damages or attorneys’ fees awarded; arbitration costs split proportionally.

CA Decision (Oct. 28, 2016)

– RSII’s Rule 43 petition to CA on questions of fact and law.
– CA affirmed CIAC except it held:
• RSII entitled to ₱1,088,214.83 balance (after deducting 2% CWT on Billings 1–15 and prior payments).
– Motions for reconsideration denied (Feb. 21, 2017).

Consolidated SC Petitions (Rule 45)

­ GMCLI: Seek full reinstatement of CIAC Award (denying the P1.088 M).
­ RSII: Claim not only the P1.088 M but also ₱3,815,996.50 (improperly withheld CWT on Billings 1–14), or alternatively require issuance of BIR Form 2307.

Issues

  1. Is RSII entitled to the 2% CWT on Billings 1–14 (₱3.815 M) in addition to ₱1.088 M?
  2. Must GMCLI be ordered to issue BIR Form 2307 to RSII?
  3. What is the proper mode and scope of judicial review of CIAC arbitral awards?

Applicable Law

­ Philippine Constitution (1987) – judicial power; SC appellate jurisdiction.
­ EO 1008 (CIAC Law, 1985) – establishes CIAC; Section 19 limits appeals to SC on pure questions of law.
­ RA 876 (1953) – general Arbitration Law; Sections 24–25: limited grounds to vacate or correct arbitral awards.
­ RA 9285 (ADR Act, 2004) – incorporates CIAC Law; Chapter 6 governs construction arbitration.
­ Special ADR Rules (A.M. 07-11-08-SC, 2009) – restrict court review of arbitral awards.
­ Rules of Court – Rule 43 (CA appeals from quasi-judicial agencies) and Rule 45 (SC review on certiorari, questions of law); Rule 65 (certiorari, grave abuse).
­ RR 2-98 – Credit-withholding tax rules.

SC Ruling on Procedure (En Banc)

  1. CIAC arbitral awards are subject to two distinct appellate tracks:
    a. Rule 45 (SC, certiorari): direct appeal on PURE QUESTIONS OF LAW only.
    b. Rule 65 (CA petition for certiorari): exceptional factual review, LIMITED TO:
    ­ “Integrity” of the arbitral tribunal (fraud, corruption, partiality, misconduct, disqualification, excess of power).
    ­ Violation of the Constitution or positive law by the tribunal.
  2. Rule 43 appeals (questions of fact, mixed issues) before the CA are proscribed PROSPECTIVELY; pending Rule 43 petitions remain governed by the old rules.
  3. Other procedural rules (Revised Circular 1-95, Special ADR Rules, CIAC Rules) are deemed amended to conform.

SC Ruling on Merits

­ CIAC and CA correctly held GMCLI had no authority to withhold CWT on the cumulative amount.
­ RSII not entitled to the rebutted balance of ₱4,8



...continue reading

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