PHILROCK, INC. vs.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION

COMMISSION(CIAC) and Spouses VICENTE and NELIA CID
G.R. No. 132848-49, June 26, 2001
CORONA, j.
FACTS:
Cid spouses (CS) bought cement from PhilRock but said cement was
substandard; thus, CS sued PhilRock for damages with the Regional Trial Court. The
trial court issued an Order dismissing the case and referring the same to the CIAC
because CS and PhilRock had an Agreement to Arbitrate with the CIAC. Preliminary
conferences were held but disagreements arose, and no common ground was
reached. CS and PhilRock requested that the case be remanded to the trial court.
The trial court ruled that it no longer had jurisdiction and ordered the case to
be remanded to the CIAC for arbitral proceedings. CIAC resumed conducting
preliminary conferences but PhilRock requested to suspend the proceedings. The
Arbitral Tribunal denied Philrock's request.
CS agreed to remove several engineers from the case, a point of contention
preventing further arbitration; hence, parties proceeded to finalize and sign the
Terms of Reference which stated that 'the parties agree that their differences be
settled by an Arbitral Tribunal.
Philrock filed its Motion to Dismiss, alleging therein that the CIAC had lost
jurisdiction due to parties' withdrawal of their consent to arbitrate. The motion was
denied, and the CAIC proceeded with the conferences. Judgment is rendered in
favor of the Claimant, directing Respondent to pay. Petitioner thus questions the
jurisdiction of CIAC at CA.
ISSUE: Does CIAC have jurisdiction over the case of CS and PhilRock?
HELD:
Yes. Section 4 of EO 1008 vests in the CIAC original and exclusive jurisdiction
over disputes arising from or connected with construction contracts entered by
parties that have agreed to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration. The parties
submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the CIAC though their Agreement to
arbitrate.
Petitioner claims, on the other hand, that this Agreement was withdrawn by
respondents because of the exclusion of the seven engineers of petitioners in the
arbitration case. This is untenable. CS removed the obstacle to the continuation of
the arbitration, by withdrawing their objection to the exclusion of the seven
engineers. Second, petitioner continued participating in the arbitration even after
the CIAC Order had been issued. Finally, by submitting itself to arbitration
proceedings and actively participating therein, petitioner is estopped from assailing
the jurisdiction of the CIAC, merely because the latter rendered an adverse decision.