Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NOTICE
Gentlemen :
When a dispute arose between the parties, respondent RIB led a complaint
before respondent CIAC for arbitration. Petitioner led its answer with compulsory
counterclaim and raised therein the issue of lack of jurisdiction on the part of CIAC. In
its order dated August 1, 1995, respondent CIAC considered the question of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
jurisdiction merely as a special defense which can be included as part of the issues in
the Terms of Reference. Petitioner led a motion for reconsideration which was denied
by respondent CIAC in its order dated October 4, 1995.
Petitioner raised the sole issue of lack of jurisdiction in a petition for certiorari
and prohibition, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary
injunction with respondent Court of Appeals. In a decision dated February 27, 1996,
respondent court dismissed the petition. Petitioner led a motion for reconsideration
but the same was denied by respondent court in a resolution dated July 22, 1996.
Hence, the instant petition.
We nd no meritorious basis in the petition to sustain a reversal of the ruling of
respondent court upholding the jurisdiction of the CIAC in this case. Executive Order
No. 1008, otherwise known as the "Construction Industry Arbitration Law," de nes the
jurisdiction of CIAC thusly:
Section 4. Jurisdiction. — The CIAC shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over disputes arising from, or connected with, contracts entered into
by parties involved in construction in the Philippines, whether the dispute arises
before or after the completion of the contract, or after the abandonment or
breach thereof. These disputes may involve government or private contracts.
For the Board to acquire jurisdiction, the parties to a dispute must agree to
submit the same to voluntary arbitration. . . .
Petitioner contends that this Court had already interpreted this particular
provision of the law in the case of Tesco Service, Incorporated vs. Vera , 209 SCRA 440
[1992] to mean that respondent CIAC can acquire jurisdiction over the dispute only
when the parties have agreed to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration before
respondent CIAC itself. HEITAD
What the law merely requires for a particular construction contract to fall within
the jurisdiction of CIAC is for the parties to agree to submit the same to voluntary
arbitration. Unlike in the original version of Section 1, as applied in the Tesco case, the
law does not mention that the parties should agree to submit disputes arising from
their agreement speci cally to the CIAC for the latter to acquire jurisdiction over such
disputes. Rather, it is plain and clear that as long as the parties agree to submit to
voluntary arbitration, regardless of what forum they may choose, their agreement will
fall within the jurisdiction of the CIAC, such that, even if they speci cally choose another
forum, the parties will not be precluded from electing to submit their dispute before the
CIAC because this right has been vested upon each party by law, i.e., E.O. No. 1008.
This Court's pronouncement in the case of Hi-Precision Steel Center, Inc. vs. Lim
Kim Steel Builders, Inc., 228 SCRA 397 [1993] find relevance, to wit:
Voluntary arbitration involves the reference of a dispute to an impartial
body, the members of which are chosen by the parties themselves which parties
freely consent in advance to abide by the arbitral award issued after
proceedings where both parties had the opportunity to be heard. The basic
objective is to provide a speedy and inexpensive method of settling disputes by
allowing the parties to avoid the formalities, delay, expenses and aggravation
which commonly accompany ordinary litigation, especially litigation which goes
through the entire hierarchy of courts. Executive Order No. 1008 created an
arbitration facility to which the construction industry in the Philippines can have
recourse. The Executive Order was enacted to encourage the early and
expeditious settlement of disputes in the construction industry, a public policy
the implementation of which is necessary and important for the realization of
national development goals.
These noble objectives are what Resolution Nos. 2-91 and 3-93 seek to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
implement, which Section 1, prior to its amendment, effectively curtailed. Rather
unfortunately, this particular provision of CIAC Rules was not the one at issue in the
Tesco case. Thus, no ruling on that point could be passed upon.
Now that Section 1, Article III, as amended, is submitted to test in the present
petition, we rule to uphold its validity will full certainty. However, this should not be
understood to mean that the parties may no longer stipulate to submit their disputes to
a different forum or arbitral body. Parties may continue to stipulate as regards their
preferred forum in case of voluntary arbitration, but in so doing, they may not divest the
CIAC of jurisdiction as provided by law. Under the elementary principle on the law on
contracts that laws obtaining in a jurisdiction form part of all agreements, when the law
provides that the Board acquires jurisdiction when the parties to the contract agree to
submit the same to voluntary arbitration, the law in effect, automatically gives the
parties an alternative forum before whom they may submit their disputes. That
alternative forum is the CIAC. This, to the mind of the Court, is the real spirit of E.O. No.
1008, as implemented by Section 1, Article III of the CIAC Rules.
The herein interpretation is not, in its strict sense, a reversal of a previous
pronouncement in the Tesco case necessitating a ruling by the Court En Banc,
considering the variance in the factual circumstances, as well as the governing
procedural rules applicable to the two distinct cases.
The Court also takes this opportunity to dispel any mistaken notion that
substantial rights were created or modi ed by the CIAC in its Resolution Nos. 2-91 and
3-93, as regards matters of jurisdiction, We would also like to clarify that such rights
were vested as early as of the time E.O. No. 1008 which took effect in February 1985.
However, said provision had not been properly implemented in the original version of
Section 1 of the CIAC Rules. Thus, amendments through Resolution Nos. 2-91 and 3-93
were called for.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and
the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED. TIADCc
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
LUCITA A. SORIANO
Asst. Div. Clerk of Court