GR 127275; (June, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127275 ; June 20, 2003
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, WILLIAM GOLANGCO CONSTRUCTION CORP., Chairman ERNESTO S. DE CASTRO, and members LAURO M. CRUZ and VICTOR P. LAZATIN of the ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL of the CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION COMMISSION, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) contracted respondent William Golangco Construction Corporation (WGCC) to construct floors of PCIB Tower II. Alleging defective granite finishes, PCIB filed a request for arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC), praying that WGCC be held liable for construction deficiencies. WGCC denied the claim and counterclaimed for material cost adjustment due to price escalations during the project. The CIAC, by Decision dated June 21, 1996, awarded PCIB a net amount after offsetting WGCC’s valid counterclaim.
PCIB filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration with the CIAC on June 28, 1996, a remedy not allowed under CIAC Rules. It subsequently filed a petition for “Certiorari and/or Partial Review” with the Court of Appeals (CA) on July 12, 1996. WGCC moved to dismiss, contending the petition was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period, as evidenced by a CIAC logbook entry showing PCIB’s representative received the decision on June 24, 1996. PCIB’s counsel claimed he only acquired knowledge on June 28, 1996, and argued the petition could be treated as a certiorari under Rule 65 or a petition for review under Circular 1-95.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing PCIB’s petition for being filed out of time.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The reglementary period for appealing or challenging a CIAC decision is jurisdictional. The CIAC logbook constituted competent evidence that PCIB received the decision on June 24, 1996. Therefore, the 15-day period to file a petition for review expired on July 9, 1996. PCIB’s filing on July 12, 1996, was three days late, rendering the CIAC decision final and executory. The CA correctly lost jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Regarding PCIB’s alternative plea for certiorari, the Court ruled it was improper. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. It is available only when there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Since the remedy of a petition for review was available but was lost due to PCIB’s own negligence, certiorari could not be resorted to. The Court also noted that PCIB’s proper remedy from the CA’s dismissal was a petition for review under Rule 45, not the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus. Even treating it liberally as a Rule 45 petition, PCIB failed to proffer meritorious grounds for relaxation of procedural rules. The petition was dismissed.