FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255219. September 28, 2022.]
UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner, vs.HILMARC'S CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 28, 2022which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 255219 (UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. v. Hilmarc's Construction Corporation). — After a judicious review of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari1 and AFFIRM the Decision dated 21 March 2019 and Resolution dated 8 January 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. Nos. 150766 & 150756. The CA affirmed the Final Award dated 24 April 2017 of the Arbitral Tribunal of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) in CIAC Case No. 22-2016.
In Wyeth Philippines, Inc. v. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, 2 the Court explained that the general rule is that the awards of the Arbitral Tribunal may be appealed only on pure questions of law, and its factual findings should be respected and upheld. It was further clarified that:
Exceptions allowed in the review of Rule 45 petitions, such as the lower court's misapprehension of facts or a conflict in factual findings, do not apply to reviews of the Arbitral Tribunal's decisions. In reviewing factual findings of the Arbitral Tribunal, exceptions must pertain to its conduct and the qualifications of the arbitrator, and not to its errors of fact and law, misappreciation of evidence, or conflicting findings of fact. It is only when "the most basic integrity of the arbitral process was imperiled" that a factual review of the findings of the arbitral tribunal may be reviewed. 3 aScITE
Executive Order No. 1008, 4 or the Construction Industry Arbitration Law, provides for a narrow ground by which the arbitral award can be questioned in a higher tribunal due to the highly technical nature of proceedings before the CIAC, as well as its emphasis on the parties' willingness to submit to the proceedings. 5
In this case, petitioner UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. (UCPB) asserts that the CA gravely erred in ruling that: (a) there is substantial evidence to support the proposition that Philippine-Sundt Construction & Development Corporation (Phil-Sundt) is guilty of delay; (b) respondent Hilmarc's Construction Corporation (Hilmarc's) and Phil-Sundt conducted a joint evaluation prior to the termination of the Sub-Contract Agreement; (c) Hilmarc's is entitled to liquidated damages, and recoupment of excess down payment; (d) credence should be accorded to the evidence belatedly offered by Hilmarc's in violation of the CIAC Rules of Procedure; (e) UCPB should be held solidarily liable with Phil-Sundt; (f) the award of attorney's fees and imposition of interest in favor of Hilmarc's are proper; and (g) Hilmarc's is not liable to UCPB for its counterclaims. 6
Except for item (d), the foregoing grounds raise questions of fact as they put into issue the CA's appreciation of the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Issues on delay, on the supposed lack of joint evaluation prior to termination, and on the denial of UCPB's counterclaims, are undoubtedly factual issues in nature. Meanwhile, questions on the entitlement of liquidated damages are related to the issue of delay and the supposed questionable computation of the unrecouped balance of the down payment awarded to Hilmarc's, and is therefore subsumed as factual. aScITE
UCPB claims that there are amounts due to Phil-Sundt from Hilmarc's in this case, which should be offset. 7 We, note, however, that Phil-Sundt itself negated this very claim when it failed to interpose a counterclaim against Hilmarc's allegations. As to the issue relating to UCPB's challenge of its solidary liability with Phil-Sundt, the same shows that it is also hinged upon the factual claim that Phil-Sundt cannot be held liable in this case. As such, the same treatment is in order.
Applying Wyeth, UCPB mainly seeks the re-litigation of the factual issues, which have already been passed upon by the Arbitral Tribunal. Accordingly, the Court upholds such factual findings. There appears to be no exceptional basis for a review of factual findings of the Arbitral Tribunal since there is no question as to the conduct or qualifications of the arbitrators. Moreover, it bears stressing that Phil-Sundt failed to question the CA ruling. Thus, the assailed Decision is binding as to it since issues not raised on appeal are already final and cannot be disturbed. 8
UCPB also raises the alleged error of the CA in affirming the Arbitral Tribunal's decision to consider the Formal Offer of Exhibits by Hilmarc's, which was supposedly belatedly filed. The argument has no merit. The Arbitral Tribunal is granted sufficient discretion as regards the conduct of the arbitral proceedings, which was granted to it when the parties agreed to submit their case for arbitration. 9 Also, judicial procedure is not strictly applicable in arbitration proceedings. This is confirmed by Sec. 1.3 of the Revised Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration, thus:
SECTION 1.3 Judicial rules not controlling. — In any arbitration proceeding under these Rules, the judicial rules of evidence need not be controlling, and it is the spirit and intention of these Rules to ascertain the facts in each case by every and all reasonable means without regard to technicalities of law or procedure. aScITE
The foregoing considered, there is no sufficient reason to reverse the findings of the CIAC Arbitral Tribunal, as affirmed by the CA. Thus, the instant petition should be dismissed for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 21 March 2019 and Resolution dated 08 January 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Nos. 150766 & 150756 are AFFIRMED.
The respondent's comment on the Petition for Review on Certiorari is NOTED; and the notice of change of address of Atty. Karoline J. Abello-Tordecilla, counsel for respondent, is NOTED, and her request that all notices, order, decisions, resolutions, and processes in connection with the instant case be sent to her new address at No. 18, Unit B, Saint John Street, Barangay Kaunlaran, Cubao, Quezon City, is GRANTED. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 15-81.
2. G.R. Nos. 220045-48, 22 June 2020.
3.Id., citations omitted.
4. Entitled "CREATING AN ARBITRATION MACHINERY IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY OF THE PHILIPPINES" Approved: 04 February 1985.
5.Metro Bottled Water Corp. v. Andrada Construction & Development Corp., Inc., G.R. No. 202430, 06 March 2019.
6.Rollo, pp. 35-36.
7.Id. at 54-55.
8.Department of Public Works and Highways v. CMC/Monark/Pacific/Hi-Tri Joint Venture, 818 Phil. 27, 72 (2017).
9. Sec. 4.1.1, Revised Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration.