G.R. No. 230112 , May 11, 2021
GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER OF LAGUNA, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ROSS SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case involves the proper mode of judicial review for arbitral awards rendered by the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). The Majority Opinion of the Court held that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, not an appeal under Rule 43, is the correct remedy to question a CIAC arbitral award. This separate concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Lazaro-Javier presents a contrary view, arguing that the Court of Appeals retains appellate jurisdiction over CIAC awards via Rule 43, as established by Republic Act No. 7902 .

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction, via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, to review arbitral awards, judgments, final orders, or resolutions of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC).

RULING

The separate opinion argues that the Court of Appeals retains appellate jurisdiction over CIAC arbitral awards through a petition for review under Rule 43. The reasoning is as follows:
1. Rule 43 and Established Jurisprudence: The present text of Rule 43 explicitly includes appeals from the CIAC. This has been consistently recognized by the CIAC, litigants, and the Supreme Court itself in its prior decisions. The Supreme Court has, for a long time, recognized this jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals via Rule 43 and has reviewed the Court of Appeals’ dispositions in CIAC cases under Rule 45.
2. Distinction Between Vacatur/Correction and Appeal: The opinion contends that the Majority conflated the grounds and procedures for vacating or correcting an arbitral award in the Regional Trial Court (under RA 876 and RA 9285) with the separate appeal process to the Court of Appeals. The “integrity-centered” grounds for vacatur are for RTC proceedings, not for restricting the scope of appeal to the Court of Appeals. RA 876 allows the Court of Appeals to review questions of law, and RA 9285 is open-ended regarding questions that may be raised on appeal.
3. Nature of Appeal from CIAC Awards: Under both RA 876 and RA 9285, an appeal to the Court of Appeals is taken from an order or decision of the RTC confirming, vacating, or correcting an award. However, Section 40 of RA 9285 states a CIAC award is immediately executory and does not need RTC confirmation. Therefore, unless a party first moves to vacate or correct the award in the RTC, there is no RTC order to appeal. Consequently, a CIAC arbitral award itself is not immune from direct appeal/review by the Court of Appeals, and a party need not first seek vacatur in the RTC before appealing to the CA.
4. No Re-enactment of EO 1008, Section 19: The Majority posits that RA 9285 re-enacted Section 19 of Executive Order No. 1008 (which provided for appeal to the Supreme Court on questions of law). The separate opinion disagrees. It interprets Section 34 of RA 9285 (stating construction arbitration is governed by EO 1008) as referring only to the arbitration proceedings proper before the CIAC, not to post-award judicial remedies. The grouping of sections in Chapter 6 of RA 9285 supports this, as they govern CIAC’s jurisdiction and arbitration procedure, not appellate review.
5. Effect of RA 7902: Republic Act No. 7902 , which expanded the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, is deemed to have amended Section 19 of EO 1008 long before RA 9285 was enacted. Thus, after a CIAC award is rendered, the judicial process begins via Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals, not via Rule 45 to the Supreme Court as per the old EO 1008 provision.
6. Constitutional and Statutory Constraints: The opinion raises a constitutional issue, citing Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution , which states that no law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and consent. The alleged vesting of “exclusive appellate jurisdiction in the Supreme Court” via a re-enacted EO 1008 provision, without the Court’s advice and consent, would be constitutionally infirm. Furthermore, the Court’s own Special ADR Rules (Rule 19.7) should not be construed to repeal a statute like RA 7902.
In essence, the separate opinion dissents from the Majority’s conclusion that Rule 45 is the exclusive mode of review, and concurs in the result only to the extent that it affirms the need for finality of arbitral awards, but maintains that the Court of Appeals is the proper appellate forum under Rule 43 as provided by RA 7902.