Case Summary (G.R. No. 199705)
Applicable Law
The applicable law governing this case includes the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Civil Code, and the Revised Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration by the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC).
Background Facts
RDC was contracted by DPWH for the construction of the Rosario-Pugo-Baguio Road Rehabilitation Project, with a stipulated contract duration of 12 months. DPWH issued a Notice to Proceed to RDC on May 15, 1997. However, the project was suspended on June 4, 1997, due to DPWH's failure to obtain an Environmental Clearance Certificate and resolve right-of-way issues, resulting in a suspension period of approximately 32 months until February 8, 2001. RDC completed the project on September 6, 2001, and subsequently filed a claim for expenses incurred during the suspension, amounting to P93,782,093.64.
CIAC Proceedings
Following DPWH's refusal to pay the claimed amount, RDC filed a complaint with CIAC demanding P67,639,576.55, representing the balance of its original claim for idle time compensation. The CIAC awarded RDC P22,409,500.00, determining that RDC had been in financial distress during the execution of the waiver agreement to accept a reduced amount. Subsequently, RDC filed motions for reconsideration which were denied by CIAC via orders signed by only one member of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Court of Appeals Action
RDC later sought review before the Court of Appeals (CA), contesting the validity of the CIAC orders on the grounds of lack of proper signatures from all members of the tribunal and claiming that its motions were timely. The CA granted RDC's petition, modifying the CIAC's award to P61,748,346.00.
Legal Issues Addressed
The principal issue was whether the CA erred in ordering DPWH to pay RDC the additional compensation. The Court pointed out the existence of another CA decision that had reversed the earlier CIAC ruling. The principle of res judicata prohibits re-litigating settled issues between the same parties, and in this instance, the Court noted the earlier CA decision had become final and binding.
Court Ruling
The Court granted DPWH’s petition for review, reversing the CA’s decisions and reinstating the prior ruling. It emphasized that a later division of the CA could not have overturned the findings and conclusions made by an earlier division on identical i
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 199705)
The Case
- This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- The petition contests the Decision dated April 26, 2011, and the Resolution dated December 14, 2011, from the Court of Appeals (CA), specifically from the Special Seventeenth Division and Former Special Seventeenth Division.
- The assailed Decision and Resolution arose from a petition challenging the issuances of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) in CIAC Case No. 05-2008, a collection case initiated by Roguza Development Corporation (RDC) against the DPWH.
- The CIAC's Arbitral Award dated July 17, 2008, granted RDC a claim, reduced from its original amount, to P22,409,500.00.
- The CIAC also issued Orders on December 8, 2008, and January 26, 2009, denying RDC's motions for reconsideration of the Arbitral Award and the first CIAC Order, respectively.
- The CA's Decision increased the Arbitral Award to P61,748,346.00 and set aside the CIAC Orders for lack of proper signatures from the Arbitral Tribunal members.
The Facts
- RDC was awarded the contract for the construction of the Rosario-Pugo-Baguio Road Rehabilitation Project, which had a contract duration of 12 months.
- The Notice to Proceed (NTP) was issued by DPWH on May 15, 1997, and construction began on May 24, 1997.
- The project was suspended on June 4, 1997, due to DPWH's failure to secure necessary environmental clearances and resolve right-of-way issues, lasting until February 8, 2001.
- RDC completed the project on September 6, 2001, and subsequently claimed compensa