DEPT.

OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL
RESOURCES VS.
UNITED PLANNERS
CONSULTANTS, INC.
CARYL B. ESTRERA
II-JD
FACTS OF THE CASE
FACTS OF THE CASE
 On July 26, 1993, petitioner, through the Land Management Bureau, entered into a
Consultancy Agreement with respondent, UPCI, in connection with the LMB’s Land
Resource Management Master Plan Project. DENR committed to pay the total
contract price of P4.3 million pesos based on the predetermined percentage
corresponding to the particular stage work accomplished
 On December, 1994, respondent completed the work which DENR formally accepted
on December 26, 1994. However, petitioner was only able to pay 47 percent of the
total contract price which amounted to P2,038,456.80.
 On October 25, 1994, COA released the Technical Service Office Report finding the
contract price to be 84.14 percent excessive. In a letter dated December 10, 1998,
petitioner acknowledged its liability to respondent in amount of P2.2 million pesos
and assured payment in the soonest possible time;
FACTS OF THE CASE
 Despite repeated demands, petitioner failed to pay its obligation under the
Consultancy Agreement which resulted in respondent filing a Complaint before the
Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 222 docketed as Case No. Q-07-60321.
 During the preliminary conference, the parties agreed to adapt the CIAC Revised
Rules Governing Construction Arbitration to govern the arbitration proceedings. They
further agreed to submit their respective draft decisions in lieu of the memoranda of
arguments on or before April 21, 2010.
 On the said due date, only respondent complied with the given arbitration
proceedings. Petitioner moved for the deferment of deadline which was then
followed by another until the deadline was only on May 7, 2010;
FACTS OF THE CASE
 On April 30, 2010, the Arbitral Tribunal denied the petitioner’s motions and deemed
its non-submission as a waiver but declared that it would still consider petitioner’s
draft decision if submitted before May 7, 2010. Petitioner filed said decision on the
said date;
 On May 7, 2010, the Arbitral Tribunal rendered its decision in favor of respondents.
Unconvinced, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the former merely
noted without any action saying that the Tribunal lost its jurisdiction when it
submitted the its report to the RTC.
 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and a Manifestation and Motion on May
19, 2010 and June 1, 2010 respectively claiming that they were denied the
opportunity to be heard when the Tribunal failed to consider its draft decision;
FACTS OF THE CASE
 On March 30, 2011, the RTC merely noted petitioner’s motions finding that the
copies of the Arbitral Tribunal Award sent to them along with the OSG, contrary to
petitioner’s claims. RTC confirmed the Arbitral Tribunal Award pursuant to Rule 11.2
of the Special ADR Rules.
 On June15, 2011, respondent moved for the issuance of writ of execution to which no
comment/ opposition was filed by petitioner. RTC granted respondent’s motion on
Sept. 12, 2011.
   Petitioner moved to quash the writ of execution saying that respondent was not
entitled to monetary claims and that the issuance of the writ was premature. This is
because RTC didn’t resolve the Motion for reconsideration and Motion and
Manifestation which they filed on May 19, 2010 and June 1, 2010 respectively.
RTC RULING
RTC RULING
 On July 9, 2010, RTC denied the petitioner’s motion to quash.

 Also, the June 1, 2010 Motion and Manifestation and May 19, 2010 Motion for
Reconsideration are defective for failure of observing the three-day notice rule. On
July 12, 2012, RTC then denied petitioner’s another motion to quash on July 9, 2012.
CA RULING
CA RULING
 On a decision dated March 26, 2014, the CA dismissed the certiorari petition
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
SUPREME COURT RULING
SC RULING
 Republic Act 9285 also known as the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004
institutionalized the use of an Alternate Dispute Resolution System. Notably, the ADR
Rules do not automatically govern the arbitration proceedings itself. One feature of
the ADR is that it is a product of party autonomy or freedom of the parties to make
their own arrangements to resolve their own disputes;
 In the case at bar, the Consultancy Agreement contained an arbitration clause. Both
parties had agreed to move for arbitration.
 On the May 7, 2010 decision, under Sec. 17.2 of Rule 17 of the CIAC Rules, no motion
for reconsideration or new trial may be sought by any of the parties but any of them
may file a petition for correction of the final award which shall interrupt the running
period for appeal.
 The CA correctly dismissed their petition.
SC RULING
 Under Rule 19.28 of the Special ADR Rules, the certiorari petition should be filed with
the CA within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution
sought to be annulled or set aside. No extension of time to file the petition should be
allowed.
 Since petitioner’s filing of its certiorari petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 126458 was made
nearly two months after its receipt of the RTC’s Order dated July 9, 2012, or on Sept.
10, 2012, said petition was clearly dismissible.
 The petitioner cannot be said to have been denied due process as the records
undeniably show that it was accorded ample opportunity to ventilate its position. On
this score, the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 126458 was properly
dismissed.
SC RULING
 On the matter of the execution of the confirmed Arbitral Award against the
petitioner, a government agency, in the light of PD. 1445 or the Governing Auditing
Code of the Philippines, Section 26 expressly provides that execution of money
judgment against the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies, and
instrumentalities is within COA’s primary jurisdiction;

 WHEREFORE, petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 26, 2014 of the Court of
Appeals CA-G.R. SP No. 126458 which dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by
petitioner is hereby AFFIRMED.
THANK YOU!