ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT VS. MACTAN ROCK INDUSTRIES INC. G.R. NO. 172438, JULY 4, 2012
METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER
DISTRICT VS. MACTAN ROCK INDUSTRIES INC.
G.R. NO. 172438, JULY 4, 2012
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Section 2.1, Rule 2 of the Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission (CIAC) Revised Rules particularly specifies
that the CIAC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over construction
disputes, whether such disputes arise from or are merely connected
with the construction contracts entered into by parties, and whether such
disputes arise before or after the completion of the
contracts. The jurisdiction of
the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) as a quasi-judicial
body is confined to construction disputes, that is, those arising from, or
connected to, contracts involving “all on-site works on buildings or altering
structures from land clearance through completion including excavation,
erection and assembly and installation of components and equipment.” The Court
held that the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) retained
jurisdiction even if both parties had withdrawn their consent to arbitrate.
FACTS
MCWD entered into a Water Supply Contract (the Contract) with MRII wherein it was agreed that
the latter would supply MCWD with potable water,
On March 15, 2004, MRII filed a Complaint against MCWD with
the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC), citing the arbitration clause (Clause
18) of the Contract. In the said complaint, MRII sought the reformation of
Clause 17 of the Contract, or the Price Escalation/De-Escalation Clause, in
order to include Capital Cost Recovery in the price escalation formula, and to
have such revised formula applied from 1996 when the bidding was conducted,
instead of from the first day when MRII started selling water to MCWD. It also
sought the payment of the unpaid price escalation/adjustment, and the payment
of unpaid variation/extra work order and interest/cost of money up to December
31, 2003. ‚rÎ
MCWD filed its Answer, which included a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that the CIAC had no jurisdiction over the case, as the
Contract was not one for construction or infrastructure.
CIAC denied the motion to dismiss and MWCD appealed to the CA
(First petition). While such appeal was pending, CIAC decided on the main case
against MWCD. This was also appealed to the CA (second petition). Both
petitions for review were dismissed by the appellate court.
ISSUE
1. Whether or not
CIAC has jurisdiction over the dispute.
2. Whether or not the CIAC could proceed with the case even if the MCWD
refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings.
RULING
Yes.
The
court ruled that the
jurisdiction of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) as a
quasi-judicial body is confined to construction disputes, that is, those
arising from, or connected to, contracts involving “all on-site works on
buildings or altering structures from land clearance through completion
including excavation, erection and assembly and installation of components and
equipment.” The Court held that the Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission (CIAC) retained jurisdiction even if both parties had withdrawn
their consent to arbitrate. The jurisdiction
of the CIAC may include but is not limited to violation of specifications for
materials and workmanship; violation of the terms of agreement; interpretation
and/or application of contractual provisions; amount of damages and penalties;
commencement time and delays; maintenance and defects; payment default of
employer or contractor and changes in contract cost. Excluded from the coverage
of this law are disputes arising from employer-employee relationships which
shall continue to be covered by the Labor Code of the Philippines.
Here, the parties
apparently characterized the Contract as one involving construction, as its
arbitration clause specifically refers disputes, controversies or claims
arising out of or relating to the Contract or the breach, termination or
validity thereof, if the same cannot be settled amicably, to an arbitration
tribunal, in accordance with E.O. No. 1008, or the Construction Industry
Arbitration Law. Had the parties been of the
mutual understanding that the Contract was not of construction, they could have
instead referred the matter to arbitration citing Republic Act (R.A.) No. 876, or The
Arbitration Law. Having been passed into law in 1953, the said statute was
already in existence at the time the contract was entered into, and could have
been applied to arbitration proceedings other than those specifically within
the arbitral jurisdiction of the CIAC.
Yes.
The court ruled that though one party can
refuse to participate in the arbitration proceedings, this cannot prevent
the CIAC from proceeding with the case and issuing an award in favor of one of
the parties. Section 4.2 of the Revised Rules of Procedure Governing
Construction Arbitration (CIAC Rules) specifically provides that where the
jurisdiction of the CIAC is properly invoked by the filing of a Request for
Arbitration in accordance with CIAC Rules, the failure of a respondent to
appear, which amounts to refusal to arbitrate, will not stay the proceedings,
notwithstanding the absence of the respondent or the lack of participation of
such party. In such cases, the CIAC is mandated to appoint the arbitrator/s in
accordance with the Rules, and the arbitration proceedings shall continue. The
award shall then be made after receiving the evidence of the claimant. In such a case, all is not lost for the party
who did not participate. Even after failing to appear, a respondent is still
given the opportunity, under the CIAC Rules, to have the proceedings reopened
and be allowed to present evidence, although with the qualification that this
is done before an award is issued