Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation vs National Irrigation Administration

GR 260215

Facts: HRCC was contracted by NIA to perform the main civil work for the Magat River
Multipurpose Project. The contract was that there would be that the rates were fixed on a dollar
to peso basis, based on the current currency, and should there be any disputes, must be agreed
upon by both parties within 30 days, subject to the approval of the administrator of NIA to
ensure speedy disposition of the project. HRCC after finishing the project had complained that
the dollar to peso rates have shifted dramatically over the years, and as such requested to have
a change in the rates. This was filed on November 7, 1986, of which was given the final letter
that their request was denied only by January 7th 1987. By February 27, 1987 a request for
arbitration was filed by HRCC in response, and the CA had ruled that the arbitration was
reversed as it had exceeded the 30 day period that was given in the prescription on the
contract. Further to this, NIA also contests that the calculations made for the new rates in the
CIAC(The Arbiters) were not approved by the company.

Issue:
1)Has the prescription period expired when HRCC had filed for arbitration?
2)Can the calculations of the CIAC be contested?

Held: No, the period had not expired.

Ratio:
1) As first off the letter of finality had only been released on January 7, meaning that the
submission for arbitration was still within the 30 day period. To further this, the 30 day
prescription period was only for the speedy disposition of the project, meaning that it no longer
held weight now that the project was over. It had also waived its prescriptive period when it
continued to entertain Hydro’s claim regarding new matters raised by the latters in its letters to
NIA and then issuing rulings thereon. Even if the 30 day period were followed, it had waived so
by filing written appearances and asserting its own counterclaims, by submitted six nominees to
the arbitrary tribunal in the CIAC, by participating in the deliberations for the preliminary
conference set by CIAC, and finally by by obiating the introduction of testimonial evidence on
the arbitration.

2. These calculations cannot be contested, as it is deemed to have been approved by the

administrator of the NIA, who is the highest ranking officer, and as such the arbitration was
entered freely, and with consent, even if the administrator was not the one deemed to do so, he
had represented NIA multiple times to allow for his action to be a valid action of the NIA.