GR 192948; (December, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 192948 . December 07, 2016.
B.F. CORPORATION AND HONORIO PINEDA, PETITIONERS, V. FORM-EZE SYSTEMS, INC., RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner B.F. Corporation (BFC), represented by its President Honorio Pineda, was the general contractor for the SM City-Marikina mall project. BFC engaged respondent Form-Eze Systems, Inc. for the lease of a formwork system and related services, executing five contracts and two letter-agreements. A dispute arose regarding BFC’s payments, leading Form-Eze to file a Request for Arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). The CIAC rendered a Final Award, partially granting Form-Eze’s monetary claims and ordering BFC to pay a substantial sum plus arbitration costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CIAC’s decision. BFC and Pineda elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the CIAC lacked jurisdiction over Pineda personally and contesting the awarded amounts and the imposition of arbitration costs.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the CIAC correctly exercised jurisdiction over petitioner Honorio Pineda in his personal capacity; (2) whether the CIAC’s computation of the monetary awards was proper; and (3) whether the allocation of arbitration costs was justified.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the CIAC correctly dismissed the case against Pineda personally. The contracts were executed by Pineda in his official capacity as President of BFC, a corporation with a separate juridical personality. There was no evidence that Pineda bound himself personally or that the corporate veil should be pierced. On the monetary awards, the Court found the CIAC’s computations, based on the evidence and contract terms, to be final and binding. The factual findings of arbitral tribunals like the CIAC are accorded respect and finality, and petitioners failed to prove any grave abuse of discretion. However, the Court modified the ruling on arbitration costs. It held that since both parties’ claims were only partially granted, they should share the costs equally, rather than having BFC bear them entirely. The Court affirmed the modified monetary awards but ordered the parties to equally share the cost of arbitration.