REMEDIAL LAW | What is the effect of presumption? Diesel Construction vs. UPSI Property, 549 SCRA 12
What is the effect of presumption?
Diesel Construction vs. UPSI Property,
549 SCRA 12
FACTS Diesel, as Contractor, and UPSI, as Owner, entered into a Construction Agreement (Agreement) for the interior architectural construction works for the 14th to 16th floors of the UPSI BuildingDiesel requested for extension owing to the following causes or delaying factors: (1) manual hauling of materials from the 14th to 16th floors; (2) delayed supply of marble; (3) various change orders; and (4) delay in the installation of shower assembly. UPSI disapproved of the desired extensions. Diesel filed a complaint before the CIAC, praying that UPSI be compelled to pay the unpaid balance of the contract price, plus damages and attorney's fees. In an answer with counterclaim, UPSI denied liability, accused Diesel of abandoning a project yet to be finished. CIAC ordered UPSI to pay Diesel the total amount of PhP 4,027,861.60, broken down as follows: PhP 3,661,692.60, representing the unpaid balance of the contract price; and PhP 366,169 as attorney's fees. In the same decision, the CIAC dismissed UPSI's counterclaim. the CA issued its equally assailed Resolution denying reconsideration to UPSI, but partially granting Diesel's motion, petitioner is still liable to respondent Diesel in the reduced amount of P2,515,173.64, with legal interest until the same is fully paid. Diesel maintains that the CA erred in its declaration that it may review the CIAC's decision considering the doctrine on the binding effect of conclusions of fact of highly specialized agencies, such as the CIAC, when supported by substantial evidence. Deisel accused the members of the CIAC Arbitral Tribunal and declare them to be non-technocrats and not exceptionally well-versed in the construction industry warranting reversal and nullification of the tribunal's findings. Whether the [CA] has the discretion, indeed the jurisdiction, to pass upon the qualifications of the individual members of the CIAC Arbitral Tribunal and declare them to be non-technocrats and not exceptionally well-versed in the construction industry warranting reversal and nullification of the tribunal's findings.
RULING Yes. The court ruled that well-established jurisprudence has it that "[t]he consequent policy and practice underlying our Administrative Law is that courts of justice should respect the findings of fact of said administrative agencies, unless there is absolutely no evidence in support thereof or such evidence is clearly, manifestly and patently insubstantial.”
Correlatively, Diesel, obviously having in mind the disputable presumption of regularity, correctly argues that highly specialized agencies are presumed to have the necessary technical expertise in their line of authority. In other words, the members of the Arbitral Tribunal of the CIAC have in their favor the presumption of possessing the necessary qualifications and competence exacted by law. A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely on and invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue. One need not introduce evidence to prove that the fact for a presumption is prima facie proof of the fact presumed.