Title
Supreme Court
Metro Iloilo Water District vs. Flo Water Resources , Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 238322
Decision Date
Oct 13, 2021
MIWD, a water utility, disputed Flo Water's "take or pay" claim for undelivered water under a bulk supply contract. Arbitration ruled in Flo Water's favor, upheld by courts, citing MIWD's improper remedy and judicial deference to arbitral awards.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 238322)

Background of the Dispute

In 2011, MIWD initiated a bidding process for bulk water supply, which led to the award of a contract to a joint venture that included Flo Water. Following the execution of the BWSC and the issuance of a Notice to Proceed, disparities emerged between the water volume MIWD received and that which it anticipated. MIWD claimed Flo Water delivered only 6,000 cubic meters per day instead of the required 15,000 cubic meters due to infrastructure limitations, thereby resulting in substantial unpaid obligations according to the contract.

Contractual Issues and Opinions

The central issue revolved around whether the BWSC constituted a "take or pay" contract. MIWD initially contended it was not obligated to pay for the shortfall in delivery, while Flo Water maintained that it was entitled to payments for the agreed volumes irrespective of actual delivery. An initial opinion from the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel supported MIWD's view; however, upon reconsideration by the Department of Justice, the interpretation shifted, asserting that MIWD remained responsible for the full contractual volume.

Arbitration Process and Tribunal Ruling

With the disagreement unresolved, Flo Water filed for arbitration. The ad hoc tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of Flo Water, affirming that the BWSC was a "take or pay" contract and ordering MIWD to compensate Flo Water over P164 million for the shortfall in deliveries. The tribunal emphasized the intention behind the contract and MIWD's actions post-execution, which indicated acceptance of the stipulated volume.

Court of Appeals Decision

MIWD’s challenge to the arbitral award via a petition for review was denied by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court determined that MIWD utilized an improper remedy by invoking Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which is not applicable to filings concerning arbitral awards. Instead, the CA concluded that MIWD should have pursued a motion to vacate or modify the arbitral award with the Regional Trial Court within the prescribed time frame.

Legal Framework and Considerations

The Court cited relevant statutory frameworks, particularly the Government Procurement Reform Act and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act. These statutes establish protocols for arbitration and the appeal process related to arbitral awards. The Special Rules on Alternative Dispute Resolution were invoked to clarify that appeals concerning arbitral decisions are restricted under specific conditions and that claims regarding the merits of an award cannot be revisited in substantive appellate proceedings.

Debates over Contract Interpretation and Judicial Review

The crux of MIWD's appeal revolved around a misinterpretation of the BWSC's terms and the assertion of unjust enrichment. Howeve

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.