Access over 20 million homework & study documents

search

adr cases first set 1

Content type
User Generated
Type
Study Guide
Rating
Showing Page:
1/22
ADR CASES - FIRST SET 1
CHINA CHANG JIANG ENERGY CORP. vs. ROSAL
INFRASTRUCTURE g.r.no. 125706, 9/30/1996 cannot be located
in the internet or in the SCRA
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 127275 June 20, 2003
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, WILLIAM GOLANGCO CONSTRUCTION
CORP., Chairman ERNESTO S. DE CASTRO, and members
LAURO M. CRUZ and VICTOR P. LAZATIN of the ARBITRAL
TRIBUNAL of the CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION
COMMISSION, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
Petitioner Philippine Commercial Industrial Bank (PCIB) assails, by
the present Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus, the September 25,
1996 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing its petition
for "Certiorari and/or Partial Review of CIAC Case No. 07-95," on
motion of private respondent William Golangco Construction
Corporation (WGCC).
PCIB contracted WGCC to construct the 5th to 21st floors of PCIB
Tower II in Makati. Alleging that the "granite finish [of the tower]
proved to be defective such that after all efforts at negotiations proved
futile" it hired another contractor to redo the "defective finish", but that
WGCC refused to pay it actual damages incurred in the process,
PCIB filed a request for arbitration with the Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission (CIAC), which docketed it as CIAC Case No.
07-95, praying that WGCC be held liable for "construction
deficiencies."
WGCC denied PCIB’s claim, it alleging that it accomplished the
project faithfully and in accordance with the specifications-
requirements of PCIB which accepted it after due inspection. It
counterclaimed that PCIB was actually indebted to it for material cost
adjustment since the cost of materials substantially increased in the
course of the construction of the project.
The CIAC, by Decision
1
of June 21, 1996, found that PCIB was
entitled to recover from WGCC the sum ofP9,741,829.00
representing cost of repairs done by another contractor on the
project. On WGCC’s counterclaim, finding that under the parties’
contract, increase for labor and materials under certain conditions
was allowed but that PCIB presented no strong, or at best, token
opposition to the evidence presented by WGCC for the escalated cost
of materials, the CIAC awarded WGCC the amount of P5,777,157.84.
The CIAC accordingly disposed as follows:
After summing up the award to both parties this TRIBUNAL hereby
awards the amount of THREE MILLION NINE HUNDRED SIXTY-
FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY[-]ONE PESOS AND
SIXTEEN CENTAVOS (P3,964,671.16) to CLAIMANT Philippine
Commercial Industrial Bank. Respondent William Golangco
Construction is hereby ordered to pay the stated amount with legal
interest of six (6%) percent from date of this decision until fully paid.
2
PCIB filed on June 28, 1996 a Motion for Partial Reconsideration
3
of
the CIAC Decision which is not allowedunder Section 9, Article XV of
the CIAC Rules of Procedure. It subsequently filed on July 12, 1996
before the CA a petition for "Certiorari and/or Partial Review"
4
which
"may be treated as an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court or as a petition for review under Circular 1-95 of
the Supreme Court," alleging that the CIAC acted in excess of its
jurisdiction and contrary to law in awarding, without basis, an amount
in favor of WGCC.
To PCIB’s petition filed before the CA WGCC filed a Motion to
Dismiss with Motion to Cite PCIB Counsel for Contempt
5
on the
ground that it was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period for
filing an appeal, in support of which it alleged that, contrary to the
allegation of counsel for PCIB that he acquired actual knowledge of
the CIAC decision on June 28, 1996, PCIB actually received a copy
thereof on June 24, 1996, hence, it had only until July 9, 1996 within
which to file before the CA a petition for review. Since PCIB filed
before the CA its petition for "Certiorari and/or Partial Review"
on July 12, 1996, WGCC concluded that it was late by 3 days.
WGCC attached to its motion a certified photocopy
6
of the pertinent
entry in the CIAC logbook showing that Engineer Bong Nuno received
a copy of the decision for PCIB on June 24, 1996.
By its assailed Resolution,
7
the CA granted WGCC’s Motion to
Dismiss PCIB’s petition upon a finding that indeed PCIB received a
copy of the CIAC decision on June 24, 1996 and, therefore, its
petition was belatedly filed. On the nature of the petition, the CA held
that an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 and a petition for
review under Circular 1-95 of the Supreme Court cannot be the
subject of a single pleading.
PCIB’s Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by the CA, it
comes to this Court by the present petition for Certiorari and
Mandamus upon the following grounds:
I
THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
TO THE GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE
PETITIONER AND FAILED OR UNLAWFULLY NEGLECTED TO DO
AN ACT WHICH THE LAW ENJOINS IT TO DO WHEN IT
DISMISSED THE PETITION IN CA G.R. SP NO. 41227.
II
THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
TO THE GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE AND INJURY TO
THE PETITIONER AND FAILED OR UNLAWFULLY NEGLECTED
TO DO AN ACT WHICH THE LAW ENJOINS IT TO DO WHEN IT
REFUSED TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER’S ALTERNATIVE
RELIEFS FOR REVIEW AND/OR FOR CERTIORARI. (Underscoring
supplied)
PCIB’s counsel disclaims that Engineer Bong Nuno is his employee
but submits anyway that he was not authorized to receive the CIAC
decision for him in his (counsel’s) capacity as, by his claim, "the
authorized representative" of PCIB.
The present petition fails.
In the petition for "Certiorari and/or Partial Review of CIAC Case No.
07-95"
8
filed before the CA by PCIB, its counsel alleged, inter alia, as
follows, quoted verbatim:
"Inasmuch as the undersigned counsel ha[s] not officially received its
copy of the Decision sought to be reviewed because the Arbitral
Tribunal had such copy served only on [PCIB], the reglementary
period should be reckoned from the date when the undersigned
counsel actually acquired knowledge thereof which was on 28 June
1996when it filed [PCIB’s] Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
Accordingly, treated as a Petition for Review, pursuant to resolution
No. 2-95, this petition is seasonable.
A copy of the Decision as served upon [PCIB] itself is attached
marked as Annex ‘A’ and made a part thereof."
9
(Underscoring
supplied)
The copy of the CIAC decision attached to PCIB’s petition before the
CA is a computer print-out bearing theoriginal signatures of the
Chairman and two members of the Arbitral Tribunal.
10
When PCIB
received that copy of the CIAC decision, the petition filed before the
CA did not state.
As earlier stated, WGCC filed before the CA a Motion to Dismiss with
Motion to Cite PCIB Counsel for Contempt,
11
on the grounds that:
THE . . . PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BEYOND THE
REGLEMENTARY PERIOD OF FIFTEEN DAYS FROM
PETITIONER’S RECEIPT OF THE ASSAILED DECISION.
PETITIONER’S COUNSEL IS GUILTY OF MISREPRESENTING
FACTS IN A BLATANT ATTEMPT TO HIDE THE BELATED FILING
OF THE . . . PETITION;
and in said Motion to Dismiss, WGCC alleged that per CIAC records,
petitioner received its copy of the CIAC decision on June 24, 1996,
hence, the petition filed before the CA on July 12, 1996 was late by 3
days.
In its Opposition [to WGCC’s Motion to Dismiss], and Countermotion
for Contempt,
12
PCIB’s counsel admitted that PCIB was indeed

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/22
ADR CASES - FIRST SET 2
served copy of the CIAC decision through Engineer Nuno but that it
was only on June 28, 1996 that PCIB sent him a copy thereof. Thus
PCIB’s counsel alleged:
In its petition filed with this Honorable Court [of Appeals], the
petitioner was candid in alleging that although it received a copy of a
decision of the Arbitral Tribunal, no actual service thereof was made
on the undersigned counsel. Receipt by the petitioner itself of the
decision did not start the running of the period to appeal. It is basic
that:
"xxx. The moment an attorney appears for any party, notice should be
given to the furnished. ‘xxx where a party appears by attorney in an
action or proving in a court of record all notices thereafter requires to
be given in the action or providing must be given to the attorney and
not to the client; and a notice given to the client and not to his
attorney is not a notice in law(Palad vs. Cui, et al., 28 Phil. 44). In
legal contemplation, therefore, and under the fact, the present case,
there was no legal service of the notice, and the defendants creed not
be in default." (Elli, et al. vs. Ditan, et al., 5 SCRA 503, 506).
When, therefore, the undersigned submitted in the petition that it
had actual knowledge of the decision on 28 June 1996 when the
petitioner sent it a copy thereof, it was not only being candid,
but was also admitting that it already had actual notice of the
decision as of then, hence, the running of the period to appeal must
commence as of then. (Emphasis supplied, underscoring by
petitioner)
In the present petition before this Court, PCIB’s counsel now alleges
that in the CIAC decision, he was specifically named as "the
representative and counsel for [PCIB]," but since the decision was not
served on him as the authorized representative of PCIB "but to an
employee of [PCIB] on June 24, 1996, it was only on June 27 (sic),
1996 that [he] had actual knowledge of the content of the decision."
(Emphasis supplied). PCIB’s counsel’s latest position may not be
entertained given his glaring admission that copy of the CIAC
decision was duly served on June 24 1996 on PCIB, a party to the
case which, as will now be discussed, CIAC Rules mandates
should be the one to be notified of the "text" of the decision.
The CIAC Rules of Procedure does not contain a provision similar to
Section 2, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court, reiterated in the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that service to any
party represented by counsel should be made upon his counsel,
unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the
court.1âwphi1 Instead, Section 7, Article XV of the CIAC Rules of
Procedure provides:
Section 7. Notification of Award to Parties Once an award has
been made, provided that the costs of the arbitration have been fully
paid to the Secretariat by the parties or by one of them, the
Secretariat shall notify theparties of the text signed by the Arbitrator
or Arbitral Tribunal.
Additional copies certified true by the Executive Director of the
Secretariat shall be made available, on request and at any time, to
the parties or their counsel but to no one else. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
From the immediately-quoted provision of the CIAC Rules, it is
the parties who are to be notified of the "text" of the CIAC
decision.1avvphi1 This answers PCIB’s counsel’s jarring complaint
that he was not officially served with a copy of the CIAC decision.
In fine, copy of the CIAC decision having admittedly been served on
and received by PCIB on June 24, 1996, PCIB’s counsel cannot
assail the validity of such service by now claiming that the same was
ineffective as it was not served on him (counsel) as the duly
authorized representative of PCIB.
It is an elementary rule of procedure that "perfection of an appeal
within the reglementary period is not onlymandatory but
also jurisdictional so that failure to do so renders the questioned
decision final and executory, and deprives an appellate court of
jurisdiction to alter the final judgment, much less to entertain the
appeal."
13
PCIB having filed its petition for "Certiorari and/or Partial
Review" after the CIAC decision had become final and executory, the
CA correctly granted WGCC’s Motion to Dismiss the same. This
leaves it unnecessary to pass upon PCIB’s plaint about the CA’s
"refus[al] to allow [its] alternative reliefs for review and/or certiorari."
Suffice it to state that the following ruling of this Court instructs:
We have time and again reminded members of the bench and bar
that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when
"there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law." Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to
a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that
remedy, certiorari not being a substitute for lost appeal. The
remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not
alternative or successive (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted.)
14
PCIB, at all events, appeals for a relaxation of the Rules given "the
[substantial] issues and amounts involved." But even its present
petition for certiorari and mandamus is not the proper remedy from
the CA Resolution. What it should have filed was a petition for review
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. But even if, in accordance with
the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of
justice, this Court, in the exercise of its discretion, treats the present
petition for certiorari as one for review under Rule 45, petitioner has
failed to proffer meritorious reasons or arguments for its allowance.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 141897 September 24, 2001
METRO CONSTRUCTION, INC., petitioner,
vs.
CHATHAM PROPERTIES, INC., respondent.
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
The core issue in this case is whether under existing law and rules
the Court of Appeals can also review findings of facts of the
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC).
Respondent Chatham Properties, Inc. (CHATHAM) and petitioner
Metro Construction, Inc. (MCI) entered into a contract for the
construction of a multi-storey building known as the Chatham House
located at the corner of Herrera and Valero Streets, Salcedo Village,
Makati City, Metro Manila. In April 1998, MCI sought to collect from
CHATHAM a sum of money for unpaid progress billings and other
charges and instituted a request for adjudication of its claims with the
CIAC. The case was docketed as CIAC Case No. 10-98. The arbitral
tribunal was composed of Joven B. Joaquin as Chairman, and Beda
G. Fajardo and Loreto C. Aquino as members.
The preliminary conference before the CIAC started in June 1998 and
was concluded a month after with the signing of the Terms of
Reference (TOR) of the Case.
1
The hearings immediately started with
the presentation of MCI's witnesses, namely: Ms. Ma. Suzette S.
Nucum, Chief Accountant; Ms. Isabela Redito, Office Engineer; Mr.
John Romulo, Field Manager; and Dr. John Y. Lai, President.
CHATHAM's witnesses were: Engr. Ruperto Kapunan III, Managing
Director of RK Development and Construction Co., Inc. (RKDCCI),
which was the Construction Manager firm hired by CHATHAM to
oversee the construction work of the Chatham House; Engr. Alex
Bautista, Area Manager of RKDCCI; Mr. Avelino M. Mercado,
CHATHAM's Project Manager; and Engr. Jose T. Infante.
In the meantime, the TOR was amended and finalized on 19 August
1998.
2
The facts, as admitted by the parties before the CIAC and
incorporated in the original TOR, are as follows:
1. On 21 April 1994, the parties formally entered into a . . .
contract for the construction of the "Chatham House" . . . for
the contract price of price of P50,000,000.00 inclusive of
value-added tax, subject to adjustments in accordance with
Article 9 of the contract. Construction of the project,
however, commenced on 15 April 1994 upon the release by
CHATHAM of the down payment
2. On 12 July 1994, a Supplemental Contract was executed
by and between the parties whereby CHATHAM authorized
MCI to procure in behalf of the former materials, equipment,

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/22

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 22 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
CHINA CHANG JIANG ENERGY CORP. vs. ROSAL INFRASTRUCTURE g.r.no. 125706, 9/30/1996 – cannot be located in the internet or in the SCRA THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 127275               June 20, 2003 PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, Petitioner,  vs. COURT OF APPEALS, WILLIAM GOLANGCO CONSTRUCTION CORP., Chairman ERNESTO S. DE CASTRO, and members LAURO M. CRUZ and VICTOR P. LAZATIN of the ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL of the CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION COMMISSION, Respondents. D E C I S I O N CARPIO-MORALES, J.: Petitioner Philippine Commercial Industrial Bank (PCIB) assails, by the present Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus, the September 25, 1996 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing its petition for "Certiorari and/or Partial Review of CIAC Case No. 07-95," on motion of private respondent William Golangco Construction Corporation (WGCC). PCIB contracted WGCC to construct the 5th to 21st floors of PCIB Tower II in Makati. Alleging that the "granite finish [of the tower] proved to be defective such that after all efforts at negotiations proved futile" it hired another contractor to redo the "defective finish", but that WGCC refused to pay it actual damages incurred in the process, PCIB filed a request for arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC), which docketed it as CIAC Case No. 07-95, praying that WGCC be held liable for "construction deficiencies." WGCC denied PCIB’s claim, it alleging that it accomplished the pr ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Just what I needed…Fantastic!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4