ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | METRO BOTTLED WATER CORPORATION VS. ANDRADA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC., G.R. NO. 202430, MARCH 6, 2019
METRO BOTTLED WATER CORPORATION VS.
ANDRADA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC., G.R. NO. 202430,
MARCH 6, 2019
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
The general rule is that appeals of
arbitral awards by the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) may
only be allowed on pure questions of law.
FACTS
For this Court’s resolution is a Petition for Review on Certiorari7 assailing the March 21, 2012 Decision8 and June 25, 2012 Resolution9 of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the April 11,
2002 Arbitral Award of the
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. The arbitral tribunal had ordered
Metro Bottled Water Corporation (Metro Bottled Water) to pay Andrada
Construction & Development Corporation, Inc. (Andrada Construction) the
amount of P4,607,523.40 with legal interest from November 24, 2000 as unpaid
work accomplishment in the construction of its manufacturing plant.
ISSUE
Whether
petitioner raises a question of law that is appealable to the Court of Appeals.
RULING
No.
The
court ruled that the
general rule is that appeals of arbitral awards by the Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission (CIAC) may only be allowed on pure questions of law. Spouses David v. Construction Industry and
Arbitration Commission, 435 SCRA 654 (2004), recognized this gap, and
thus, applied the provisions of Republic Act No. 876, or the Arbitration Law:
[F]actual findings of construction arbitrators are final and conclusive and not
reviewable by this Court on appeal, except when the petitioner proves
affirmatively that: (1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud or
other undue means; (2) there was evident partiality or corruption of the
arbitrators or of any of them; (3) the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in
refusing to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to
hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; (4) one or more of the
arbitrators were disqualified to act as such under section nine of Republic Act
No. 876 and willfully refrained from disclosing such disqualifications or of
any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been materially
prejudiced; or (5) the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly
executed them, that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter
submitted to them was not made.
Here, the court ruled that petitioner raised issues that are
questions of fact in the guise of questions of law. As such, they are not
proper for this Court’s review. The difference between a question of law and a
question of fact is settled. In Spouses
David:
There is a
question of law when the doubt or difference in a given case arises as to what
the law is on a certain set of facts, and there is a question of fact when the
doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Thus, for a
question to be one of law, it must not involve an examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented by the parties and there must be no doubt as to
the veracity or falsehood of the facts alleged.