GR 181969; (October, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 181969; October 2, 2009
ROMAGO, INC., Petitioner, vs. SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Romago, Inc. and respondent Siemens Building Technologies, Inc. entered into an Equipment Supply Sub-Contract Agreement for an electrical project. SBTI delivered the equipment, but Romago failed to pay in full. SBTI filed a Request for Arbitration with the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. Romago participated, signing the Agreement to Submit Dispute to Arbitration and the Terms of Reference. The Arbitrator rendered a decision in favor of SBTI, ordering Romago to pay the principal amount, attorney’s fees, and arbitration costs.
SBTI filed a petition for confirmation of the arbitral award with the Regional Trial Court. Romago filed an answer, arguing the Arbitrator displayed partiality. The RTC confirmed the award. Romago filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. It then filed a notice of appeal, which the RTC denied for being filed out of time. Romago filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. The CA held that the proper remedy from the RTC’s order confirming the award was an appeal via a petition for review under Rule 43, not a special civil action for certiorari. Romago’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Romago’s petition for certiorari and in ruling that the proper remedy from the RTC’s order confirming the arbitral award was an appeal under Rule 43.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. The Court held that a decision of the Regional Trial Court confirming, vacating, or correcting a domestic arbitral award is final and executory. The proper remedy from such a decision is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, filed with the Court of Appeals. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Romago’s failure to timely file a Rule 43 petition rendered the RTC’s decision final and executory.
The Court explained that the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 (Republic Act No. 9285) provides for a distinct regime for arbitral awards. A party aggrieved by an RTC decision on an arbitral award must appeal via Rule 43. Romago’s contention that the Arbitrator’s partiality constituted grave abuse of discretion was unavailing, as the proper course was to raise such arguments in a Rule 43 petition, not in a certiorari petition after losing the right to appeal. The negligence of Romago’s counsel in missing the appeal period binds the client, and the Court found no compelling reason to excuse such negligence. Thus, the CA correctly dismissed the petition.