G.R. No.

199650               June 26, 2013

J PLUS ASIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner,

vs.
UTILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

Facts:

- Petitioner entered into a Construction Agreement with Seven Shades of Blue Trading
and Services to build a condominium unit to be completed within a year. SSBTS also
submitted a Performance Bond issued by the Respondent in the amount equivalent to
20% of the down payment.

- 7 months later, it was found out that SSBTS only finished 27.5% of the project. Because
of this, Petitioner terminated the contract and sent demand letters to SSBTS and
Respondent as surety. As its demand was unheeded, Petitioner filed a Request for
Arbitration before the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission.

- SSBTS argued that the delay was caused by the retrofitting and other revision works
ordered by the Petitioner and that the termination is premature.

- Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Petitioner has no cause of
action against it. Motion was denied. Filed for a Motion for Reconsideration but the same
was denied.

- Respondent argued that it only guaranteed 2-% of the down payment, and since the
value of the project’s accomplishment already exceeded that amount, the Performance
Bond has already been extinguished.

- CIAC rendered a decision in favor of Petitioner. Unsatisfied, Respondent filed a Petition

for Review under rule 43 with the CA. CA reversed CIAC decision on the ground that
there was no default on the part of SSBTS.

- Petitioner filed for a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the SC.
Petitioner argued that under the ADR act of 2004, only the RTC has jurisdiction to either
confirm, correct, or vacate a domestic arbitral award

ISSUE: WON the CA has jurisdiction to review arbitral awards

Ruling: YES, CA HAS JURISDICTION

- CIAC Arbitral Award need not to be confirmed by the RTC as provided under E.O No.
1008 which states that arbitral award of CIAC is final and unappealable, except on
questions of law, which are appealable to the SC.

- This was later amended by the R.A No. 7902 and the promulgation of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure which states that decisions of quasijudicial agencies such as CIAC are
appealable to CA under a petition for review under Rule 43 and may involve either
questions of fact, of law, or of both.