UNIWIDE SALES REALTY v. TITAN-IKEDA

UNIWIDE SALES REALTY AND RESOURCES CORP v. TITAN-IKEDA CONSTRUCTION

G.R. No. 126619; December 20, 2006

Ponente: J. Tinga

FACTS:

The case originated from an action for a sum of money filed by Titan-Ikeda Construction and Development Corporation (Titan) against Uniwide Sales Realty and Resources Corporation (Uniwide) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 119, Pasay City arising from Uniwide’s non-payment of certain claims billed by Titan after completion of three projects covered by agreements they entered into with each other. 

Upon Uniwide’s motion to dismiss/suspend proceedings and Titan’s open court manifestation agreeing to the suspension, Civil Case No. 98-0814 was suspended for it to undergo arbitration. Titan’s complaint was thus re-filed with the CIAC. Before the CIAC, Uniwide filed an answer which was later amended and re-amended, denying the material allegations of the complaint, with counterclaims for refund of overpayments, actual and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. 

An Arbitral Tribunal consisting of a chairman and two members was created in accordance with the CIAC Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration. It conducted a preliminary conference with the parties and thereafter issued a Terms of Reference (TOR) which was signed by the parties. The tribunal also conducted an ocular inspection, hearings, and received the evidence of the parties consisting of affidavits which were subject to cross-examination. 

On 17 April 1995, the Arbitral Tribunal promulgated a Decision, the decretal portion of which is as follows:

 “WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

On Project 1 – Libis:

            [Uniwide] is absolved of any liability for the claims made by [Titan] on this Project.

Project 2 – Edsa Central:

            [Uniwide] is absolved of any liability for VAT payment on this project, the same being for the account of the [Titan]. On the other hand, [Titan] is absolved of any liability on the counterclaim for defective construction of this project.

            [Uniwide] is held liable for the unpaid balance in the amount of P6,301,075.77 which is ordered to be paid to the [Titan] with 12% interest per annum commencing from 19 December 1992 until the date of payment.

On Project 3 – Kalookan:

            [Uniwide] is held liable for the unpaid balance in the amount of P5,158,364.63 which is ordered to be paid to the [Titan] with 12% interest per annum commencing from 08 September 1993 until the date of payment.

            [Uniwide] is held liable to pay in full the VAT on this project, in such amount as may be computed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to be paid directly thereto. The BIR is hereby notified that [Uniwide]  Sales Realty and Resources Corporation has assumed responsibility and is held liable for VAT payment on this project. This accordingly exempts Claimant Titan-Ikeda Construction and Development Corporation from this obligation.

ISSUE:

Whether the award given by CIAC is final

HELD:

As a rule, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but also finality, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In particular, factual findings of construction arbitrators are final and conclusive and not reviewable by this Court on appeal. This rule, however admits of certain exceptions.

In David v. Construction Industry and Arbitration Commission, we ruled that, as exceptions, factual findings of construction arbitrators may be reviewed by this Court 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 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. 

Other recognized exceptions are as follows: 

(1) when there is a very clear showing of grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack or loss of jurisdiction as when a party was deprived of a fair opportunity to present its position before the Arbitral Tribunal or when an award is obtained through fraud or the corruption of arbitrators,

 (2) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the CIAC, and 

(3) when a party is deprived of administrative due process.