G.R. No. 148133, October 8, 2008
Heritage Park Management Corporation, petitioner, vs. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission and Elpidio Uy, doing business under the name and style of Edison Development and Construction, respondents.

FACTS

The Public Estates Authority (PEA) engaged Elpidio Uy (doing business as Edison Development and Construction or EDC) under a Landscaping and Construction Agreement for the Heritage Park project. Due to PEA’s delays in delivering the property, EDC filed a complaint for damages with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC), docketed as CIAC Case No. 02-2000. In March 2000, PEA executed a Deed of Assignment transferring its rights and obligations under the development contracts, including the landscaping contract subject of the CIAC case, to Heritage Park Management Corporation (Heritage). On April 5, 2000, Heritage filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) for prohibition/injunction against CIAC and EDC, arguing CIAC had no jurisdiction over the project funds under Heritage’s control, and praying for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunction to stop the CIAC proceedings. The CA issued a TRO on April 7, 2000. However, the CIAC had already finished hearings and submitted the case for decision as of April 4, 2000. The CIAC promulgated its Decision in favor of EDC on May 16, 2000. After the TRO lapsed, the CIAC issued a Notice of Award attaching the Decision on June 8, 2000. PEA and EDC both appealed the CIAC Decision to the CA, which denied their petitions. PEA’s appeal to the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 147933-34) was dismissed, affirming the CIAC Decision. Meanwhile, the CA, in the petition filed by Heritage, ruled that Heritage’s petition had become moot and academic since the CIAC had already rendered a Decision, leaving nothing more to prohibit. Heritage’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Did the “promulgation” of the CIAC Decision on May 16, 2000 violate the TRO issued by the CA?
2. Did the issuance of the CIAC Decision render the petition filed before the CA moot and academic?
3. Can the petition before the CA be considered as a petition for certiorari?
4. Is Heritage an indispensable party to the CIAC case? Did the non-inclusion of Heritage in the proceedings violate its right to due process?
5. Is EDC guilty of forum-shopping?

RULING

The petition is denied.
1. The CIAC violated the TRO issued by the CA. The drafting and promulgation of the Decision constituted “further proceeding” with the case, which was prohibited by the TRO. However, the violation was in good faith as the CIAC ensured the Decision was only released after the TRO expired. The CIAC was admonished to strictly follow orders of superior tribunals.
2. The petition before the CA had become moot and academic. The CIAC had already rendered its Decision, and the substantive merits of that Decision had been finally resolved by the Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 147933-34 (Public Estates Authority v. Uy), which affirmed the CA’s dismissal of the appeals from the CIAC Decision. Remanding the case would serve no purpose but to delay final resolution.
3. The petition before the CA could not be considered as a petition for certiorari. The petition was explicitly one for prohibition/injunction, seeking to prevent the CIAC from proceeding, not to annul a final judgment. The CIAC Decision had already been rendered and subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court.
4. Heritage was not an indispensable party to the CIAC case. The Deed of Assignment made Heritage an assignee of PEA’s rights and obligations. As an assignee, Heritage stepped into the shoes of PEA and was bound by the arbitration agreement in the original contract between PEA and EDC. Heritage’s rights could be fully protected in the enforcement stage of the CIAC award. Its non-inclusion did not violate due process.
5. EDC was not guilty of forum-shopping. The CIAC case (for damages due to delay) and the case filed with the Regional Trial Court (for injunction) involved different causes of action and reliefs. One sought monetary claims, the other sought to restrain work suspension. There was no identity of parties, rights asserted, or reliefs prayed for.