Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co, Ltd v. Dynamic Planners and Construction Corp

DOTC awarded Hanjin a contract for the construction of the Davao International Airport. A subcontracting arrangement was entered into between Hanjin and Dynamic. Breaching their agreement, Hanjin failed to give Dynamic a down payment, payment for progress billings also came late, and were effected in installments. Due to design deficiencies, a supplementary agreement was entered into by the parties. Hanjin subsequently stopped payment to Dynamic and took over the project for alleged abandonment. Dynamic demanded payment for the work done, but was unheeded. Dynamic thus submitted its claim against Hanjin for arbitration to the CIAC.

CIAC issued a computation of credits in favor of Dynamic, as well as deductions against it. CA affirmed the factual finding of the CIAC with modifications on the award for attorney’s fees, interest rate, and liability for arbitration fees.

Issue: WON CA erred in affirming CIAC’s factual findings

SC: matters raised by Hanjin are factual, revolving on the entitlement of Dynamic to the awards granted and computed by the CIAC and CA. Jurisprudence provides that mathematical computations and propriety of arbitral awards are factual determinations.

The court cannot close its eyes to consistent findings of the CA, affirmatory of that of the CIAC, that Hanjin padded expenses chargeable against Dynamic and non-abandonment of works by Dynamic. Conclusions arrived at on factual issues by the CIAC, when affirmed by the CA, are accorded great respect and even finality. If supported by substantial evidence. In this case, both the CIAC and the CA found more than ample evidence to support the same.

HUTAMA-RSEA Joint Operations, Inc v. Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corp

Respondent is the general contractor and operator of the Skyway project. Petitioner and respondent entered into an Engineering Procurement Construction Contract (EPCC) whereby petitioner would undertake the construction of Stage 1 of the Skyway Project. During said construction, petitioner wrote respondent on several occasions requesting payment of the former’s interim billings, pursuant to provisions of the EPCC/ however, respondent only partially paid the interim billings. Respondent failed to do so despite demands to pay its outstanding balance. Petitioner filed with CIAC a request for arbitration to enforce its money claims against respondent.

CIAC ruled that it had jurisdiction over the same. CA reversed.

Issue: WON CIAC has jurisdiction despite the EPCC provision requiring prior referral by the parties of their dispute to the Dispute Adjudication Board

SC: EO 1008 provides that CIAC shall have jurisdiction over a dispute involving a construction contract of said contract contains an arbitration clause, notwithstanding any reference by the same contract to another arbitration institution or arbitral body, or even in in the absence of such a clause in the construction contract, the parties still agree to submit their dispute to arbitration.

Since the jurisdiction of the CIAC is conferred by law, it cannot be subjected to any condition, nor can it be waived or diminished by the stipulation, act, or omission of the parties, as long as the parties agreed to submit their construction contract dispute to arbitration, or if there is an arbitration clause in the construction contract.

Heunghwa Industry Co, Ltd v. DJ Builders Corp

Petitioner was able to secure a contract with DPWH to construct the Roxas-Langogan Road in Palawan. A subcontract agreement was entered between petitioner and respondent for the earthwork, sub base course and box culvert of the project. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. Respondent thereafter filed before the RTC for breach of contract and collection of sum of money against petitioner. Counsels of the parties submitted the issues to CIAC. Subsequently, petitioner, through its new counsel, filed before the RTC a motion to withdraw the order which referred

the case to CIAC, claiming it never authorized such referral. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss before the CIAC which was denied. CA affirmed.

Issue: WON CIAC has jurisdiction

SC: Based on law and jurisprudence, the CIAC has jurisdiction over the dispute. EO 1008 vested in CIAC original and exclusive jurisdiction over construction disputes in construction projects in the Philippines provided the parties agreed to submit such disputes to arbitration. It is plain and clear that as long as the parties submit to voluntary arbitration, regardless of what forum they may choose, their agreement will fall within the jurisdiction of the CIAC, such that, even if they specifically choose another forum, the parties will not be precluded from electing to submit their dispute before the CIAC because this right has been vested upon each party by law. Considering the same, a subsequent consent by the parties would be superfluous and unnecessary.

Where the jurisdiction of CIAC is properly invoked by the filing of a Request for Arbitration in accordance with the rules, the failure despite due notice which amounts to a refusal of the respondent to arbitrate, shall not stay the proceedings notwithstanding the absence or lack of participation of the respondent.