G.R. No. 101444 May 9, 1995
A.C. ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner, vs. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION COMMISSION and DEE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Dee Construction Corporation filed a Second Motion for Partial Reconsideration, insisting it was entitled to 12% per annum interest on a monetary award granted by the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). It argued that under Executive Order No. 1008 and the Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration, CIAC awards are final and “inappealable.” Citing Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, it contended that all final and executory monetary judgments, regardless of the obligation’s nature, should bear 12% legal interest.
The obligation breached in the underlying arbitration was not a loan or forbearance of money. The CIAC award had been fully paid by petitioner A.C. Enterprises, Inc. on May 6, 1992. The Supreme Court had earlier issued a temporary restraining order against the award’s execution, which was lifted upon the Court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration on April 8, 1992.

ISSUE

Whether private respondent is entitled to 12% per annum interest on the CIAC monetary award from the date the award became “final and inappealable” until its satisfaction.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the Second Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The Court clarified the critical distinction between a “final and inappealable” award and a “final and executory” judgment. Under E.O. No. 1008 and the CIAC Rules, an arbitral award becomes “final and inappealable” upon issuance, meaning it is binding and only appealable to the Supreme Court on questions of law. However, it becomes “final and executory” only after the lapse of the 30-day period to appeal without a petition being filed, or upon the Supreme Court’s final resolution of an appeal.
Applying Eastern Shipping Lines, the 12% per annum interest rate applies from the time a judgment becomes final and executory, not merely “final and inappealable.” This is because the period after finality is deemed equivalent to a forbearance of credit. In this case, the CIAC award became final and executory only on April 8, 1992, when the Supreme Court’s resolution denying reconsideration was served. Since the award was fully paid on May 6, 1992, the interest accruing for that less-than-one-month period was considered de minimis and not chargeable against the award. Thus, private respondent’s claim for 12% interest from an earlier date was without merit.