GR 187552 53 Leonen (Digest)
G.R. No. 187552-53, October 15, 2019
SHANGRI-LA PROPERTIES, INC. (NOW KNOWN AS SHANG PROPERTIES, INC.), PETITIONER, V. BF CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. Nos. 187608-09, October 15, 2019] BF CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. SHANGRI-LA PROPERTIES, INC. (SLPI), NOW KNOWN AS EDSA PROPERTIES HOLDINGS, INC.; THE PANEL OF VOLUNTARY ARBITRATORS (ENGR. ELISEO I. EVANGELISTA, MS. ALICIA TIONGSON, AND ATTY. MARIO EUGENIO V. LIM), ALFREDO C. RAMOS, RUFO B. COLAYCO, ANTONIO B. OLBES, GERARDO O. LANUZA, JR., MAXIMO G. LICAUCO III, AND BENJAMIN C. RAMOS, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
This is a Separate Concurring Opinion by Justice Leonen in consolidated cases involving Shangri-La Properties, Inc. and BF Corporation. The main issue revolves around the review of an arbitral award issued by the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). Justice Leonen concurs with the result of the main decision but expresses a distinct legal position regarding the standard of review for CIAC arbitral awards.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals has the authority to review questions of fact in appeals from the final and inappealable arbitral awards issued by the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission.
RULING
Justice Leonen maintains that, as a general rule, arbitral awards issued by the CIAC are final and inappealable except on questions of law, pursuant to Executive Order No. 1008 (the Construction Industry Arbitration Law). He argues that both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals should exercise restraint in reviewing such awards, limiting review primarily to questions of law to align with the purpose of the CIAC for the early and expeditious settlement of construction disputes. However, he acknowledges that prevailing jurisprudence, as established in cases like Metro Construction, Inc. v. Chatham Properties, Inc., permits the Court of Appeals to review questions of fact based on Supreme Court Circulars and rules (Circular No. 1-91, Administrative Circular No. 1-95, and Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) and the expanded jurisdiction granted by Republic Act No. 7902. Despite this, he emphasizes that factual review should be exceptional. In this specific case, since both parties raised factual issues in their appeals, they are estopped from questioning the Court of Appeals’ authority to conduct such a review. Therefore, Justice Leonen concurs with the ponencia’s decision.