Republic of the Philippines

Department of Trade and Industry

Construction Industry Authority of the Philippines
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor Executive Building Center, 369 Sen. Gil J. Puyat Ave. cor.
Makati Avenue, Makati City

ESICOR, INCORPORATED,
Claimant,

-versus- CIAC CASE NO. 70-2023

ROCELEN RJ BUILDING TRADES, INC.,

Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER

COME NOW, RESPONDENT CORPORATION, ROCELEN RJ

BUILDING TRADES, INC., by counsel and unto this Honorable
Commission, most respectfully move for the dismissal of the above-
captioned case because of lack of jurisdiction of this Honorable
Commission over the person of the respondent. The Respondent most
respectfully avers:

I.
ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1.1 That the Respondent Corporation admits the averments in

paragraph 1 and 2 of the complaint with regard to the personal
circumstances of both parties.

1.2 That the Respondent Corporation admits the averments in

paragraph 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 with regard to the project
 requirements needed by the respondent corporation and the
proposals submitted by the claimant.

1.3 That the Respondent Corporation admits the averments in

paragraph 10 as to the amount of P 1,383,900.00 corresponding
to the amount of for additional works for waterproofing works.

1.4 That the Respondent Corporation admits the averments in

paragraph 11 insofar as to all the areas and measurements to the
waterproofing work done by the Claimant Corporation.

1.5 That the Respondent Corporation admits the averments in

paragraph 11 insofar as to all the areas and measurements to the
waterproofing work done by the Claimant Corporation.

1.6 That the Respondent Corporation admits the averments in

paragraph 12 insofar as to all payments made by the Respondent
Corporation to the Claimant Corporation for areas waterproofed
based on percentage of accomplishment by progress billing.

1.7 That the Respondent Corporation admits the averments in

paragraph 13 as to the performance of the Claimant Corporation
which religiously complied and finished with all its
waterproofing works and the certificates of completion and
acceptance that were issued by the Respondent Corporation.

1.8 That the Respondent Corporation denies the averments in

paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 for being erroneous and baseless
conclusion of facts and law; the truth being those stated in the
Special and Affirmative Defenses set forth herein below.
II.
 SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

By way of special and affirmative defenses, Respondent Corporation

respectfully states that:

A. THERE IS NO EXISTING ARBITRATION CONTRACT

Under the CIAC RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING

CONSTRUCTION ARBITRATION, Section 2.3. Condition for exercise of
jurisdiction – For the CIAC to acquire jurisdiction, the parties to a dispute
must be bound by an arbitration agreement in their contract or
subsequently agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration.

2.3.1 Such arbitration agreement or subsequent submission must be

alleged in the Complaint. Such submission may be an exchange of
communication between the parties or some other form showing that the parties
have agreed to submit their dispute to arbitration. Copies of such communication
or other form shall be attached to the Complaint.

2.1 The parties involved have not entered into an arbitration

contract by the fact that there is no existing arbitration contract.
Moreover, there is no agreement or consent between the
parties that they will be subjected to an arbitration contract.

2.2 In all of the proposed contracts submitted by the Claimant

Corporation, nobody from the Respondent ever affixed their
signature.

2.3 While it is true that actual work was performed by the

Claimant Corporation based on the Purchase Orders, it cannot
be said that insofar as the arbitration clause is concerned, the
Respondent Corporation ratified the same. In fact, as the
Purchase Order show, the only items covered by the Purchase
Orders are the descriptions of the labor and materials, which
comprise the scope of work, and the consideration of the work
subject of the purchase orders.
B. PURCHASE ORDER AGREEMENT IS THE CONTROLLING
CONTRACT

2.4 The Claimant has entered a purchase order agreement with the
respondent for the waterproofing works. The Respondent
Corporation is bound to pay the petitioner upon completion of
the works as evidenced by the Purchase Order dated February
15, 2016, Purchased Order dated December 14, 2016 and
Purchase Order dated February 14, 2018 marked as Annex/es
B, D and F.

2.5 The only documents that Respondent issued which created a

binding contract between the parties herein are the Purchase
Order dated February 15, 2016, Purchase Order dated
December 14, 2016 and Purchase Order dated February 14,
2018.

2.6 There is nothing in the Purchase Orders that states that herein
Respondent agreed to submit to arbitration of CIAC. On the
other hand, the Revised Proposal dated February 12, 2016,
Waterproofing Works for 27 Annapolis – Additional Work No.
1 dated November 16, 2016, and Waterproofing works for 27
Annapolis – Additional Work No. 3 dated December 1, 2017
are mere contractual proposals which the respondent did not
adhere to.

2.7 The governing contract is the Purchase Orders. The terms of

the Purchase Orders in consideration of the performance of the
works govern the relation of the parties and not the quotation
proposals which the Claimant Corporation submitted as the
qualifying documents to vest jurisdiction by the Honorable
Commission over this case.

2.8 There being no signed contract stipulating submission by the

parties to arbitration with this Honorable Commission, or any
communication shown by the Claimant that Respondent have
consented to an arbitration agreement, this Honorable
Commission has therefore no jurisdiction over this dispute.
2.9 Furthermore, pursuant to Section 4.3 of Rule 4 of the Revised
Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration,
whereby the contract between the parties does not provide for
arbitration and the parties cannot agree to submit the
dispute(s) to arbitration, the arbitration cannot proceed and the
Claimant/s shall be informed of that fact.

Under the law, there are two ways that a purchase order becomes a contract:

 One way is if the seller accepts the terms of the purchase order by
signing the PO or otherwise expressing acceptance in writing.

 The other way is by the seller’s providing the ordered goods.

The purchase order between the petitioner and respondent is legally binding
because all the essential requisites are manifested in said purchase order for
the contract to be valid and enforceable.

In the given case, the complaint is bereft of any allegation

constitutive of the foregoing case.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Commission that the complaint as against
Respondent Corporation, ROCELEN RJ BUILDING TRADES, INC.
be dismissed for lack of merit and lack of jurisdiction.

Other Relief, just and equitable are also prayed for.

Pasig City for Makati City; 20 September 2023.

 EVANGELISTA & MARIANO LAW FIRM
Unit 1018, AIC-Burgundy Empire Tower
ADB Avenue corner Sapphire & Garnet Roads,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1605
Landline: 83638942 • Mobile No. (+63) 09362178009
Email: emlawoffices22@gmail.com; evangelistalaw811@gmail.com

RENATO ZOSIMO B. EVANGELISTA

IBP O.R. No. 294177/01-19-2023/Quezon City
PTR No. 42629336-D; 02-09-2023; Quezon City
Attorney’s Roll No. 46098
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0028498; 4-14-25
Email: evangelistalaw811@gmail.com