DENR v.

UNITED
PLANNERS
G.R. NO. 212081 FEBRUARY 23, 2015

JERAHMEEL U. CUEVAS
FACTS :
•Land Management Bureau(LMB) failed to pay United
Planners(UP) the balance of the contract price for the
latter's service as the latter was hired for their
consultancy service.
•as there was an arbitration clause in their agreement, the
parties agreed that the Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission(CIAC) rules would govern their proceedings.
•They then referred the case to an arbitral tribunal.
•Said tribunal rendered its award in favor of UP ordering
LMB to pay UP the balance, interest, and damages.
 :
FACTS
•LMB filed a Motion for Reconsideration(MR) regarding the
award which was merely noted by the tribunal because
the latter already submitted the case and award to the
RTC for execution.
•LMB then filed a MR in the RTC which was also merely
noted by said court following the CIAC rules.
•RTC then affirmed the arbitration award. Writ of
execution was issued.
•LMB opposed such writ by filing a motion to quash
alleging that they were denied due process when their
MR was merely noted.
FACTS :
•In denying such motion, the RTC mentioned that the MR
filed by LMB was a prohibited pleading under the CIAC
rules, as such they were not denied due process.
•LMB raised the issue to the CA via certiorari petition
which was also dismissed by the CA mentioning that such
petition essentially assails the merits of the arbitral award
which is prohibited under the Special ADR Rules.
ISSUE :
•Whether or not the CA erred in applying the provisions of the Special ADR Rules,
resulting in the dismissal of petitioner’s special civil action for certiorari.[No]
•Did LMB resort to the proper remedies[No]
RULING :
•Republic Act No. 9285 institutionalized the use of an Alternative Dispute
Resolution System (ADR System) in the Philippines. The Act, however, was
without prejudice to the adoption by the Supreme Court of any ADR system as a
means of achieving speedy and efficient means of resolving cases pending
before all courts in the Philippines.
•Accordingly, A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC was created setting forth the Special Rules of
Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution (referred herein as Special ADR Rules)
that shall govern the procedure to be followed by the courts whenever judicial
intervention is sought in ADR proceedings in the specific cases where it is
allowed.
RULING :
•Notably, the Special ADR Rules do not automatically govern the arbitration
proceedings itself. A pivotal feature of arbitration as an alternative mode of
dispute resolution is that it is a product of party autonomy or the freedom of the
parties to make their own arrangements to resolve their own disputes.
•Thus, Rule 2.3 of the Special ADR Rules explicitly provides that "parties are free
to agree on the procedure to be followed in the conduct of arbitral proceedings.
Failing such agreement, the arbitral tribunal may conduct arbitration in the
manner it considers appropriate."
RULING :
•In the case at bar, their agreement contained an arbitration clause. By its referral
to arbitration, the case fell within the coverage of the Special ADR Rules.
However, with respect to the arbitration proceedings itself, the parties had
agreed to adopt the CIAC Rules before the Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with
Rule 2.3 of the Special ADR Rules.
•Under the CIAC rules, it is prohibited to file a motion for reconsideration or for a
new trial but it provides other remedies such as a motion for correction and to
appeal the final award to the CA through a petition for review under Rule 43 of
the Rules of Court.
•None of these were availed of by LMB. Instead, they opted to file a MR which
was a prohibited pleading under the rules thus rendering the arbitral award final
and executory.
THANK YOU