You are on page 1of 9

SPOUSES ROBERTO & EVELYN DAVID and COORDINATED GROUP, INC., petitioners, vs.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION and SPS. NARCISO & AIDA QUIAMBAO, respondents.

DECISION

PUNO, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailin the Decision and Resolution of the Court of !ppeals, dated "une #$, %$$# and !u ust %&, %$$#, respectivel', in C!().R. S* No. &%&#+. *etitioner COORDIN!TED )RO,*, INC. -C)I. is a corporation en a ed in the construction /usiness, with petitioner(spouses RO0ERTO and E1E23N D!1ID as its *resident and Treasurer, respectivel'. The records reveal that on Octo/er &, 455&, respondent(spouses N!RCISO and !ID! 6,I!70!O en a ed the services of petitioner C)I to desi n and construct a five(store' concrete office8residential /uildin on their land in Tondo, 7anila. The Desi n80uild Contract of the parties provided that9 -a. petitioner C)I shall prepare the wor:in drawin s for the construction pro;ect< -/. respondents shall pa' petitioner C)I the su= of Seven 7illion Three >undred Nine Thousand Ei ht >undred Twent'(One and 5484$$ *esos -*&,#$5,?%4.54. for the construction of the /uildin , includin the costs of la/or, =aterials and e@uip=ent, and Two >undred Thousand *esos -*%$$,$$$.$$. for the cost of the desi n< and -c. the construction of the /uildin shall /e co=pleted within nine -5. =onths after securin the /uildin per=it. The co=pletion of the construction was initiall' scheduled on or /efore "ul' 4+, 455? /ut was eAtended to Nove=/er 45, 455? upon a ree=ent of the parties. It appears, however, that petitioners failed to follow the specifications and plans as previousl' a reed upon. Respondents de=anded the correction of the errors /ut petitioners failed to act on their co=plaint. Conse@uentl', respondents rescinded the contract on Octo/er #4, 455?, after pa'in &4.?4B of the cost of construction. Respondents then en a ed the services of another contractor, RR! and !ssociates, to inspect the pro;ect and assess the actual acco=plish=ent of petitioners in the construction of the /uildin . It was found that petitioners revised and deviated fro= the structural plan of the /uildin without notice to or approval /' the respondents.4 Respondents filed a case for /reach of contract a ainst petitioners /efore the Re ional Trial Court -RTC. of 7anila. !t the pre(trial conference, the parties a reed to su/=it the case for ar/itration to the CONSTR,CTION IND,STR3 !R0ITR!TION CO77ISSION -CI!C.. Respondents filed a re@uest% for ar/itration with the CI!C and no=inated !tt'. Custodio O. *arlade as ar/itrator. !tt'. *arlade was appointed /' the CI!C as sole ar/itrator to resolve the dispute. Cith the a ree=ent of the parties, !tt'. *arlade desi nated En r. 2oreto C. !@uino to assist hi= in assessin the technical aspect of the case. The RTC of 7anila then dis=issed the case and trans=itted its records to the CI!C.#

Respondent C)I is li:ewise credited with an ?$B acco=plish=ent havin a total value of *5.$$ %5$.?4&.$$$.?5 .$$$.$$ *4.$?+.$%?. etc.55 ( ( *5.$$$. the a=ount of *%#?.%4&.$$ 4.?5&.ud =ent a ainst petitioners.+? 4$$.#&%.?+4.$$ &%.?4&. Rectification.$$ %.%$.$$ 44?. ocular inspections of the construction site.%55. 7isc. thus9 AWARD In su==ar'.$$$. To recapitulate9 *a'=ents alread' =ade to C)I !=ount awarded a/ove to Clai=ants Total *a'=ents due C)I for ?$B wor: acco=plish=ent Cost of =aterials and e@uip=ent Total 9 *5.+4%.ointl' and severall'.?5 4$. .??4.&4 44&. award is here/' =ade in favor of the 6uia=/aos a ainst the Respondents.44?.&5 ( ( *+. site -in. !ll other clai=s and counterclai=s are here/' dis=issed for lac: of =erit. etc.?5&. and a ainst the Clai=ants -respondents herein.?5 There is li:ewise an award in favor of the Respondents -petitioners herein. as follows9 2ost Rentals Cost to Co=plete. Da=a es due to erroneous sta:in *rofessional fees for eodetic surve's.$$ %5$. eApenses8 professional fees of en ineers 0ills for water and electricit'. *2DT !ttorne'Ds Eees 7oral Da=a es EAe=plar' Da=a es TOT!2 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( *4.%$ %#?. for the value of the =aterials and e@uip=ent left at -the.5$ 45.%&5.+?$.5$$.$44. the ar/itrator rendered .$$$.%?4.!fter conductin hearin s and two -%.455.#&%.455.&5.44?.

"%%& '(!) de* t+at t* a(.ointl' and severall'. No.$$ as such part'Ds share in the eApertDs fees paid to En r.? Thus.RIDIC!2 *ERSON!2IT3. The' li:ewise insist that the' constructed the /uildin in accordance with the contract and an' =odification on the plan was with the consent of the respondents.4 *etitioners appealed to the Court of !ppeals which affir=ed the ar/itratorDs Decision /ut deleted the award for lost rentals.$&#.455.RT OE !**E!2S ERRED IN EINDIN) *ETITIONERS "OINT23 !ND SE1ER!223 2I!02E CIT> CO(*ETITIONER COORDIN!TED -)RO. it is readil' apparent that 'et t !ne(* a(e (a * n3 2/e*t !n* !$ $act. for a @uestion to /e one of law. TO !22OC RES*ONDENTS TO .$$$. C>EREEORE. ori inal and eAclusive . N!.55 fro= *4$. T>E >ONOR!02E CO. t(a.e a''ea-a.-e t! t+e S/'(e0e C!/(t !n-1 !n 2/e*t !n* !$ -a. includin accrued interest. FConstruction Industr' !r/itration 2awF provided for an ar/itration =echanis= for the speed' resolution of construction disputes other than /' court liti ation. II. petitioners filed this petition for review on certiorari.%%5. In their first assi ned error. EAecutive Order No. Ce find no =erit in the petition.Deductin this a=ount of *+.$?+. !ETER *ETITIONERS >!1E (SIC) S.O. It reco niGed the role of the construction industr' in the countr'Ds econo=ic pro ress as it utiliGes a lar e se =ent of the la/or force and contri/utes su/stantiall' to the ross national product of the countr'.urisdiction over disputes arisin fro= or connected with construction contracts entered into /' parties who have a reed to su/=it their case to voluntar' ar/itration.nsatisfied. E.. it =ust not involve an eAa=ination of the pro/ative value of the evidence presented /' the parties and there =ust /e no dou/t as to the veracit' or falsehood of the facts alle ed. IN E!CT !ND IN 2!C. Each part' is here/' directed to pa' to the Co==ission *45.%%5.+ Thus.. IN C2E!R 1IO2!TION OE T>E DOCTRINE OE SE*!R!TE ".5 In the case at /ar.%%5. SO ORDERED. .O.. and 4%B per annu= of the net award.54. INC. . !@uino.$&#. T>ERE C!S NO 0!SIS. the' had co=pleted ?$B of the construction wor: and still have 45 da's to finish the pro.*.I2T CONTR!CT. the result is a net award in favor the Clai=ants of -sic. and there is a 2/e*t !n !$ $act when the dou/t arises as to the truth or falsit' of the alle ed facts. when the dou/t or difference in a iven case arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts.a. 4$$? vests on the Construction Industr' !r/itration Co==ission -CI!C. the Respondents are here/' ordered to pa'.455. Sect !n "# !$ E.ect. the Clai=ants the a=ount of *4.0ST!NTI!223 *EREOR7ED T>EIR O02I)!TION . raisin the followin issues9 I. 4$$? entitled. petitioners clai= that at the ti=e of rescission.a(d *+a-.?5. the a=ount of *4.& There is a 2/e*t !n !$ -a. 2oreto C..5 . fro= the ti=e it /eco=es final and eAecutor' until it is full' paid.54 with interest at +B per annu= fro= the date of the pro=ul ation of this !ward.NDER T>E S!ID CONTR!CT.NI2!TER!223 RESCIND T>E DESI)N80.

. poor floor finish.a* ta6 n3 *+a'e.-e . 7rs.a*e0ent .These clai=s of petitioners are refuted /' the evidence on record. nd!. In addition. such as. ! =ore co=prehensive list of alle ed defects. installation of sin le(tu/ sin:s where the plans called for dou/le( t'pe stainless :itchen sin:s A A A< -4. provisions for precast =oldin are lac:in AAA. the deficiencies entioned are stubouts of water closets at toilets. 'a**a3e. punchlisting of defects is done so as to ensure co pliance and satisfaction of both the contractor and the owner! "unch listing eans that the contractor will list all ajor and inor defects and rectifies the before the turnover of the project to the owner! #fter all defects had been arranged. 2(shaped :itchen counters instead of the re@uired . before a contractor turns-over the project to the owner.$ nd n3* !$ t+e *!-e a(. =isali ned walls. roofing and fra ing.e(e '/nc+:. -i.! 475 c!nc(ete c!-/0n* n t+e 0 dd-e !$ t+e . 6uia=/ao provided a virtual litan' of alle ed defects. provisions for =an' architectural =e=/ers were not provided for./ -d n3 */c+ a* a-te( n3 t+e *'ec $ ed .+ c+ a$$ected t+e !)e(a-. A A A -petitioner. installation of =uch s=aller windows than those re@uired< -5.e(e t. canopies are also lac:in A A A< -c.d 0en* !n !$ t+e .. t(at!(. Man1 !$ t+e*e de$ect* .(shaped counters A A A< -%.*t(/cted t+e .ea0 de't+*.a* t+at t+e*e .een c!((ected '( !( t! c!0'-et !n and t/(n:!)e( !$ t+e B/ -d n3 +ad t+e C!nt(act n!t . the 0uildin was not verticall' plu=/ed AAA< -/. to wit9 -a. instead of two -%. C)I ar ued that9 "In any construction work. 1iGconde. windows at the fire eAit A A A. the project is now turned over to the owner! $or this particular project.+ c+ e$$ect )e-1 and 'e(0anent-1 !. =isali ned tiles. floors with F:apa:F and disproportionate drawers and ca/inets. the use of s=aller dia onal steel trusses at the penthouse.*t te0* . =isali ned window ease=ents to wall. M!*t n!t cea. a/sence of water(proofin alon the /ase=ent wall A A A and at the roof dec: which caused lea:s that da=a es the =eGGanine floor A A A< -h.+ c+ c!/-d +a)e . we were already pinpointing these defects for punch listing before we were ter inated illegally! #s alleged by the owner. narrow and disproportionate stairs AAA one -4. failure to provide =ar/le tops for the :itchen counters< -#. -ii. )arcia and noted /' C)IDs 0en. the C!/(t !$ A''ea-* /'+e-d t+e $act/a. deviations and co=plaints of the 6uia=/aos is found in a report =ar:ed EAhi/it C(444. s:ewed walls to floors8landin s< -e.e(e c!n*t(/cted $(!0 t+e 3(!/nd $-!!( t! t+e (!!$ dec6 8 8 8 .ie 2ipardo. A A A Thus. In add t !n. doors. is EAhi/it C(?? which is a letter prepared /' C)IDs Cindell E.c!nc(ete c!-/0n* .1 t+e C-a 0ant* -respondents here. -+. thus9 AAA 4A5* t+e B/ -d n3 .e(e *een d/( n3 t+e * te n*'ect !n and t+e !n-1 de$en*e and c!00ent !$ CGI . A A A There were others which were shown durin the site inspection such as9 -4. low head clearances and truncated /ea=s A A A< -f.een te(0 nated . cabinets. ceiling and stairs and other were not yet co pleted and rectified by us! In fact we were counting on our project engineer in charge % % % to do this in as uch as this is one of his duties to do for the co pany! % % %" Confir=ator' of this assertion of C)I that it was willin to underta:e the appropriate corrective wor:s -whether or not the ite=s are punch(list ite=s. . -+. -iii.*. the recesses for window plant /oAes are lac:in AAA. t+e1 n!t ced de) at !n* $(!0 t+e a''(!)ed '-an* and *'ec $ cat !n* $!( t+e B/ -d n3.ustified in rescindin the contract. u l' discrepancies and aps< -d. no turn over was ade by the contractor to the owner yet! #ctually. addressed to the 6uia=/aos which stated that9 .a1* and .a*e0ent $!( t+e 'a(6 n3 !$ )e+ c-e* 8 8 8. t+(ee 495 add t !na. In holdin that respondents were . floors were da=a ed /' roof lea:s. chec:ed /' C)IDs )ar' 7.

t+ * d!c/0ent $(!0 CGI * an ad0 ** !n ..-.<ected t! a c!nc(ete c!(e te*t ./ -d n3 . th flr! "(5! 6ne colu n at base ent floor along grid line &7 8 has to be verified by the structural designer if ever it is safe to re oved (sic) the colu n and what will be their (sic) reco endation to support the load! "((! /%isting doors 9-& and 9-. along the light well area! ")! $ront side elevation view shall be follow (sic) as per plan specialy (sic) at . shall be replaced a (sic) new one!" Chile 7rs. 4555 A A A showed A A A that -5.e c!((ected. 3(!/nd $-!!(.1 CGI !$ t+e de$ c enc e* n t+e c!n*t(/ct !n !$ t+e B/ -d n3 . These tests were conducted at the 7aterials Testin 2a/orator' of the Depart=ent of Civil En ineerin . 3e!tec+n ca. C)I failed to produce evidence of si=ilar tests durin the construction of the 0uildin althou h it is nor=al construction practice for the contractor to provide sa=ples for concrete core tests.niversit' of the *hilippines.! /levation of office.a( *'ec 0en* $(!0 t+e . ())' the following ite s was (sic) confir ed and clarified! *hese are described as follows+ "(! #ll ceiling cornices shall be installed as per plan specification which is (" % . Sa=ple S% while it showed a co=prehensive stren th of #44& psi.! /lectrical 0eter center and location! ain panel breaker should be retained to its present ". Inc.1 Ge!te*t n3 Inte(nat !na-." in si-e! "&! #ll baseboards shall be installed as per plan specification which is wood (" % ... 6uia=/ao appeared not to have iven her confor=it'. A A A There were 4? sa=ples and A A A & $a -ed t+e te*t althou h all of the= passed the cold /end test. dining and stair lobby of ground floor shall be .e(e */. De$!(0ed (e n$!(c n3 *tee." in si-e! ". It a''ea(* t+at c!nc(ete *a0'-e* ta6en $(!0 t+e .an ne and 7nd $-!!( !$ t+e B/ -d n3 ."#s per our discussion during the last eeting dated Sept! &'. *a0'-e* 8 8 8 $a -ed t+e te*t.+ c+ needed t! . the corrective stren th in psi was /elow the specified co=prehensive stren th of #$$$ psi.a*e0ent. ! report dated "anuar' %$.<ected t! '+1* ca." higher than the elevation of parking area (subject for verification)! "1! #ll door ja bs at C!2! has (sic) to be replaced with concrete fra ing ja bs! "3! #ll ceilings ailers should be & % & in si-e! "4! #ll plywood ceiling that was da aged by rain water shall be replaced! "'! "rovide a pipe chase for the enclosure of soil stack pipe and water line pipe at the ground floor level between grid line .e(e */.and 0ate( a-* te*t n3 en3 nee(*. .te*t*. 0e. Colle e of En ineerin . A A A C)I su/=itted 6ualit' Test Certificates issued .

+ c+ . not /' C)I. the sa=ples were provided /' the =anufacturer. *e (ed/ced t+e a(ea .+ c+ (e*/-ted n t+e c!n*t(/ct !n !$ add t !nac!-/0n* . .ustification. that t+e . In an1 ca*e.anted t! (ed/ce t+e c!*t !$ c!n*t(/ct !n. A A A -I. +e c!n$ (0ed t+at +e . W+en En3(. En3(.:/2<S approval!" This i=plies necessaril' that all chan es in the approved desi n shall li:ewise /e su/=itted to the OCNER for approval. and the eAposure of the 6uia=/aos to su/stantial da=a es to the owner of the ad. It cann!t c!((ect t+at 0 *ta6e . I$ CGI 0ade a 0 *ta6e n de* 3n n3 t+e $!/ndat !n !( n e*t 0at n3 t+e c!*t !$ c!n*t(/ct !n. * t+e * n3-e 0!*t *e( !/* .ta n n3 t+e ( /ne2/ )!ca. >owever.t is understood that a contractor. that the 0uildin was not properl' constructed within the ownerDs propert' line. >e ad=itted that t+e (e) * !n !$ t+e '-an* .a* 0ade and 0'-e0ented .+ c+ </*t $ ed t+e dec * !n !$ t+e C-a 0ant* t! te(0 nate t+e C!nt(act. A A A A c *te(n * an /nde(3(!/nd tan6 /*ed t! c!--ect ./' Steel !sia certif'in to the =echanical test results and che=ical co=position of the steel =aterials tested A A A.'-an* and 2/!ted t+e '( ce $!( c!n*t(/ct n3 t+e B/ -d n3. Da) d ad0 tted t+at t+e*e (e'(e*ented a de* 3n c+an3e . R!.'-an* t! '(!) de $!( a * 3n $ cant (ed/ct !n !$ t+e c!*t !$ c!n*t(/ct !n. t .a!* n t+e d $$e(ent $-!!(* !$ t+e B/ -d n3.a*e0ent and at t+e $ (*t $-!!( t! t+e (!!$ dec6 !$ t+e B/ -d n3.1 (e) * n3 t+e '-an* and 0'-e0ent n3 t+e (e) * !n* . Conse@uentl'. A A A This resulted in the under(utiliGation of the propert'.+ c+ * at $a/-t.a*e0ent a* a 'a(6 n3 a(ea. to Steel !sia.e(t! =.6e. and .+et+e( t+e ca/*e !$ (e) * !n !$ t+e '-an* .a''(!)a. T+ * c+an3e. En r.:/2 all designs for the 6. and there is no showin that the =aterials supplied /' the =anufacturer to C)I for the 0uildin for=ed part of the steel =aterials. a one(=eter portion of the 0uildin was constructed /e'ond the propert' line.oinin propert' encroached upon. t * CGI .1 t+e Q/ a0. 1illasenor defended his structural desi n as ade@uate. Da) d t! (e) *e t+e *t(/ct/(a..a* a*6ed $!( t+e </*t $ cat !n $!( t+e (e) * !n $!( t+e '-an*.here is no evidence to show that the 6uia=/aos approved the revision of the structural plans to provide for the construction of the additional colu=ns.!t+ t+e '-an* and t+e '( ce.(eac+ !$ t+e C!nt(act c!00 tted . t+!/t t+e c!n$!(0n t1 !$ t+e C-a 0ant*.ate( $!( d( n6 n3 '/('!*e*. n 01 ) e.+ c+ e$$ect )e-1 (e*t( cted t+e /*e !$ t+e . =ust first conduct a relocation surve' /efore construction precisel' to avoid the situation which developed here. s=all as it is.a* n '/(*/ance !$ t+e (e2/e*t !$ En3(. The contentious points re ardin the construction of the cistern are9 first.!$ */c+ c+an3e*. The Contract specificall' provided in !rticle II that "the C6:*2#C*62 shall sub it to the 6.e /*ed .1 CGI . In . T+e Q/ a0.a* t+e /nde(:de* 3n !$ t+e $!/ndat !n !( $!( (ea*!n* !$ ec!n!01. in constructin a /uildin . A A A -T.c!-/0n* at t+e . Da) d . CGI '(e'a(ed t+e *t(/ct/(a. In addition.a!* acce'ted . t+!/t n$!(0 n3 t+e Q/ a0.a* at $a/-t. Santos declared that C)I =ade the la'out of the proposed structure /ased on the eAistin fence. A A A A A A En r. AAA Re3a(d n3 t+e add t !na. . C)I ad=itted that no relocation surve' was =ade /' it prior to the construction of the 0uildin . part of which was tested.a!* and !. A t+ (d 0a<!( c!nte*ted **/e c!nce(ned t+e c!n*t(/ct !n !$ t+e c *te(n.+ c+ c!/-d .1 CGI . 0ar/a 1.

would support its rulin in holdin petitioners severall' and .a* * $!( t+e dec * !n !$ t+e Q/ a0. t(/*tee !( !$$ ce(.$ nd n3* !$ t+e a(. T+e $act t+at $ )e 4?5 !$ n ne 4#5 t+e (sic) c!nc(ete *a0'-e* */..a( *'ec $ c* */.6e.+1 t+e Re*'!ndent* 4+e(e n 'et t !ne(*5. Sec!nd.a* de$ect )e !( .ate(> a* c!n*t(/cted. t+e 'e(*!na.a!* t+at t+e B/ -d n3 . t+e(e * n! nte(na. *e n)!-)e* a 2/e*t !n !$ $act.a.'a(t t !n *e'a(at n3 t+e c *te(n $(!0 t+e */0' ' t. >e ad=itted that t+e (e) * !n !$ t+e '-an* .ointl' lia/le with the Corporation9 F A A A Chen as:ed whether the 0uildin was underdesi ned considerin the poor @ualit' of the soil.a* -e** t+an t+e de* 3n ca'ac t1.a* te(0 nated a-*! *e()ed t! c!n$ (0 t+e </*t $ ed */*' c !n !$ t+e Q/ a0.*+ed a$te( t+e C!nt(act . t * nc!0'(e+en* . !t first lance..*+ed a */$$ c ent -e3a. the officers of a corporation are not personall' lia/le for their official acts unless it is shown that the' have eAceeded their authorit'. t+e c!n*t(/ct !n !$ t+e B/ -d n3 */c+ t+at 'a(t !$ t * !/t* de t+e '(!'e(t1 . rantin the ar u=ents of the Respondents -herein petitioners.+ c+ (e*/-ted n t+e c!n*t(/ct !n !$ add t !na.ad $a t+ !( 3(!** ne3.ate(. t(at!(. the C!/(t !$ A''ea-* a3a n a$$ (0ed t+e $act/a. i!e!.ate( n t+e c *te(n . Da) d t! (e) *e t+e *t(/ct/(a.4$ -e phases supplied.ointl' and severall' lia/le with petitioner C)I in the pa'=ent of the ar/itral award as the' are =erel' its corporate officers. 1illasenor defended his structural desi n as ade@uate. A A A Thus. a-!n3 . t* ca'ac t1 . the law can /e applied onl' after esta/lishin a factual /asis. En r.<ected t! '+1* ca. . Da) d ..+en +e a**ent* t! a 'atent-1 /n-a. the issue =a' appear to /e a @uestion of law as it would call for application of the law on the separate lia/ilit' of a corporation.c!-/0n* . t+ c!('!(at !n.$/. Ce find no reason to revise the=.d-1 attac+ .<ected t! a c!(e te*t.and $act/a.t1 !$ a c!('!(ate d (ect!(. >owever.a* n!t c!n*t(/cted acc!(d n3 t! a''(!)ed '-an* and *'ec $ cat !n*. and e 3+t 4&5 !$ e 3+teen 4"&5 de$!(0ed (e n$!(c n3 *tee. thus9 !s a eneral rule.%%% 3a--!n* !$ .c!-/0n*. -.a* e*ta.te*t* $a -ed t+e te*t* and t+e /nde(:de* 3n !$ t+e c *te(n .a!* t! te(0 nate t+e C!nt(act.c *te(n .'-an* t! '(!) de $!( a * 3n $ cant (ed/ct !n !$ t+e c!*t !$ c!n*t(/ct !n.ne e*ta.a* n '/(*/ance !$ t+e (e2/e*t !$ En3(.. n t+e de* 3n and c!n*t(/ct !n !$ t+e c *te(n. It is contended that petitioner( spouses David cannot /e held . These are technical findin s of fact =ade /' eApert witnesses and affir=ed /' the ar/itrator. The' were also affir=ed /' the Court of !ppeals. 0a1 *! )a. The followin findin s of pu/lic respondent -CI!C.. the c!n*t(/ct !n !$ add t !na.a* de* 3ned t! acc/0/-ate /' t! "%.a* a*6ed $!( . On this issue.e $(ee $(!0 c!nta0 nat !n. +a* (sic) n!t ta6en t+e nece**a(1 0ea*/(e* t! 0a6e ce(ta n t+at t+e . A A A C!n* de( n3 t+at t+e c *te(n * a (ece'tac-e $!( t+e c!--ect !n !$ d( n6 n3 . W+en En3(. T+e *ec!nd a** 3ned e((!( . whether petitioner(spouses as corporate officers were rossl' ne li ent in orderin the revisions on the construction plan without the :nowled e and consent of the respondent(spouses.act !$ t+e c!('!(at !n !( $!( . >owever.-e . that the o/served defects in the 0uildin could /e corrected /efore turn(over and acceptance of the 0uildin if C)I had /een allowed to co=plete its construction.3ence n d (ect n3 t* a$$a (*.

and ar/itration under the ae is of the CI!C in particular.c!nc-/* !n*. t(a.t 3ate . 4$$? created an ar/itration facilit' to which the construction industr' in the *hilippines can have recourse. fraud or other undue =eans< -%. T+e .n3 d *'/te* . n3 * 0ade t+at.4% Pet t !ne(* $a -ed t! *+!.a* c !. which parties freel' consent in advance to a/ide /' the ar/itral award issued after proceedin s where /oth parties had the opportunit' to /e heard.t+e </*t $ cat !n $!( t+e (e) * !n !$ t+e '-an*.B/ -de(*.t! !ne 'a(t1 a* t! c!n*t t/te a 3(a)e a./*e !$ d *c(et !n (e*/-t n3 n -ac6 !( -!** !$ </( *d ct !n. one or =ore of the ar/itrators were dis@ualified to act as such under section nine of Repu/lic !ct No.4# which e=phasiGed the rationale for li=itin appeal to le al @uestions in construction cases resolved throu h ar/itration. n (eac+ n3 t* $act/a.+ c+ 3!e* t+(!/3+ t+e ent (e + e(a(c+1 !$ c!/(t*. or so i=perfectl' eAecuted the=.ective for their private purposes. eAcept when the petitioner proves affir=ativel' that9 -4. ?&+ and willfull' refrained fro= disclosin such dis@ualifications or of an' other =is/ehavior /' which the ri hts of an' part' have /een =ateriall' pre. -./na-. e*'ec a--1 . n3 t+e 'a(t e* t! a)! d t+e $!(0a. )*./na. A A AF (e phases supplied)44 Clearl'. no =atter how cleverl' dis uised the' =i ht /e as Fle al @uestions.ect =atter su/=itted to the= was not =ade.anted t! (ed/ce t+e c!*t !$ c!n*t(/ct !n. The EAecutive Order was enacted to encoura e the earl' and eApeditious settle=ent of disputes in the construction industr'. it /ears to re=ind petitioners of this CourtDs rulin in the 455# case of @ :P(ec * !n SteeCente(. issues of fact. EAecutive Order No.a(. Inc. !ware of the o/. e8'en*e and a33(a)at !n . re@uires us to appl' ri orousl' the a/ove principle e=/odied in Section 45 that the !r/itral Tri/unalDs findin s of fact shall /e final and inappeala/le (sic). t+at an1 !$ t+e*e e8ce't !n* a''. *rotot'pical eAa=ples would /e factual conclusions of the Tri/unal .e$!(e t+e A(. +e c!n$ (0ed t+at +e .e$!(e t t+e **/e* !$ $act* '(e) !/*-1 '(e*ented and a(3/ed . there was evident partialit' or corruption of the ar/itrators or of an' of the=< -#.1 a--!. de-a1. a pu/lic polic' the i=ple=entation of which is necessar' and i=portant for the realiGation of the national develop=ent oals.n!t.t 3at !n.t e*. t(a.+ c+ c!00!n-1 acc!0'an1 !(d na(1 . The Court will not review the factual findin s of an ar/itral tri/unal upon the artful alle ation that such /od' had F=isapprehended factsF and will not pass upon issues which are.<ect )e * t! '(!) de a *'eed1 and ne8'en* )e 0et+!d !$ *ett.F The parties here had recourse to ar/itration and chose the ar/itrators the=selves< the' =ust have had confidence in such ar/itrators. 'e(0 t t+e 'a(t e* t! (e. that a =utual. the ar/itrators eAceeded their powers. the ar/itrators were uilt' of =isconduct in refusin to postpone the hearin upon sufficient cause shown. 1oluntar' ar/itration involves the reference of a dispute to an i=partial /od'.c!00 tted an e((!( *! e3(e3 !/* and +/(t$/. L 0 A 0 Stee. in the construction industr'.e* t! t+e ca*e at . at /otto=. final and definite award upon the su/. *a)e !n-1 .t 3at !n . t+e A(. the =e=/ers of which are chosen /' the parties the=selves. the award was procured /' corruption. Inc.T( .T( . t+e(e$!(e.udiced< or -5.+e(e a c-ea( *+!. Einall'. thus9 A A A Consideration of the ani=atin purpose of voluntar' ar/itration in eneral. the Court will not assist one or the other or even /oth parties in an' effort to su/vert or defeat that o/. the case at /ar does not raise an' enuine issue of law. or in refusin to hear evidence pertinent and =aterial to the controvers'< -4. Ce reiterate the rule that factual findin s of construction ar/itrators are final and conclusive and not reviewa/le /' this Court on appeal. and in other area for that =atter.ective of voluntar' ar/itration in the la/or field. T+e C!/(t .

!n' other =ore relaAed rule would result in settin at nau ht the /asic o/. the petition is DIS7ISSED for lac: of =erit. -e phases supplied. and an award o/tained throu h fraud or the corruption of ar/itrators.which resulted in deprivation of one or the other part' of a fair opportunit' to present its position /efore the !r/itral Tri/unal. .ective of a voluntar' ar/itration and would reduce ar/itration to a lar el' inutile institution. Costs a ainst petitioners. IN VIEW W@EREOB.