G.R. No. 132848-49, June 26, 2001
PHILROCK, INC., petitioner, vs. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION COMMISSION and Spouses VICENTE and NELIA CID, respondents.

FACTS

The Spouses Cid filed a Complaint for damages against Philrock, Inc. and seven of its officers with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. On the initial trial date, the RTC dismissed the case and referred it to the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) because the parties had filed an Agreement to Arbitrate. During preliminary conferences at the CIAC, disagreements arose regarding the inclusion of moral/exemplary damages and tort issues, and the inclusion of the seven officers who were not parties to the arbitration agreement. Due to these disagreements, both parties requested the case be remanded to the RTC. The CIAC issued an Order on April 13, 1994, formally dismissing the case for referral to the RTC. When the Spouses Cid moved to set the case for hearing in the RTC, Philrock opposed. On June 13, 1995, the RTC declared it no longer had jurisdiction and ordered the records remanded anew to the CIAC. The CIAC resumed proceedings. Philrock moved to suspend proceedings, arguing the RTC’s remand order was based on a mistaken premise, but the Arbitral Tribunal denied the request. The parties then finalized and signed the Terms of Reference, with Philrock’s counsel affixing his signature. Subsequently, Philrock filed a Motion to Dismiss with the CIAC, alleging the CIAC lost jurisdiction due to the parties’ prior withdrawal of consent to arbitrate. The CIAC denied this motion. While Philrock’s petition for certiorari questioning CIAC’s jurisdiction was pending with the Court of Appeals, the CIAC rendered a Decision awarding various sums in favor of the Spouses Cid. The Court of Appeals consolidated Philrock’s petitions and upheld the CIAC’s jurisdiction and awards.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CIAC could take jurisdiction over the case after it had been dismissed by both the RTC and the CIAC.
2. Whether the Spouses Cid have a cause of action against Philrock.
3. Whether the monetary awards granted by the CIAC were proper.

RULING

1. Yes, the CIAC retained jurisdiction. Under Executive Order No. 1008, the CIAC acquires jurisdiction when parties agree to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration. The CIAC’s April 13, 1994 Order of “dismissal” for referral to the RTC did not constitute a full termination of the case that divested the CIAC of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, once acquired, continues until the full termination of the case. The subsequent actions of the RTC (remanding the case back to CIAC) and the parties (signing the Terms of Reference) confirmed the continuation of the arbitral process. Philrock’s active participation, including signing the Terms of Reference, estopped it from questioning the CIAC’s jurisdiction.
2. Yes, the Spouses Cid have a cause of action. The cause of action arose from the construction contract between the parties, which is within the scope of disputes covered by E.O. 1008. The CIAC is empowered to resolve disputes arising from, or connected with, construction contracts.
3. Yes, the monetary awards were proper. Questions regarding the propriety of the awards are questions of fact. Under Section 19 of E.O. 1008, arbitral awards are final and unappealable except on questions of law. The Court of Appeals reviewed the records and found the awards were supported by substantial evidence. In petitions under Rule 45, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and generally accords respect and finality to the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the CIAC when supported by substantial evidence.