Asian Construction and Development Corporation v. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Asian Construction and Development Corporation (ASIAKONSTRUKT) entered into a Subcontract Agreement with Romarc Industrial Resources (ROMARC) for painting and varnishing work at the Clarion Electronics Factory. The contract amount was P730,776.00, with a completion date of September 15, 1990. The agreement stipulated that delays would result in ASIAKONSTRUKT assisting or taking over the work, with costs chargeable to ROMARC plus a 20% supervision fee. Any disputes were to be settled amicably or submitted to arbitration under Executive Order No. 1008. Procedural History: On October 31, 1990, ROMARC filed a request for arbitration, alleging completion of the work and non-payment of the balance of P309,234.44 by ASIAKONSTRUKT. ROMARC also claimed damages. ASIAKONSTRUKT, in its Answer, alleged that ROMARC incurred delays, necessitating ASIAKONSTRUKT's intervention and incurring expenses chargeable to ROMARC. The Petition: The Arbitral Tribunal rendered an Award on May 13, 1991, finding that ROMARC completed the work on September 15, 1990, and ordered ASIAKONSTRUKT to pay the unpaid balance of P291,648.08. ASIAKONSTRUKT filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the award. The respondent COMMISSION proceeded to enforce the award as no restraining order was issued.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition raises questions of fact that are beyond the scope of a petition for certiorari. Whether the findings of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission are supported by evidence and free from grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The Supreme Court found no justification for the modification or reversal of the disputed decision of the respondent Arbitration Commission and no reason to give due course to the petition. The issues raised were mainly factual, and there was no showing that they were resolved arbitrarily or without basis; on the contrary, the findings of the Arbitration Commission were supported by evidence on record.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the petition and the scope of certiorari: The Court reiterated the settled rule that in petitions for certiorari, as a mode of appeal, only questions of law distinctly set forth may be raised. Such questions are defined as those that do not call for any examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties. A petition for certiorari will lie only where a grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Voluntary Arbitrator is clearly shown. The writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and its jurisdiction is not to be equated with appellate jurisdiction. The Court will not engage in a review of the facts found nor even of the law as interpreted or applied by the Arbitrator unless the supposed errors of fact or of law are so patent and gross and prejudicial as to amount to a grave abuse of discretion or an excess de pouvoir on the part of the Arbitrator. Since the issues raised by the petitioner were mainly factual and would necessitate an examination or re-evaluation of the evidence on which the arbitrators based their decision, the petition could not be given due course. On the factual findings of the Arbitration Commission: The Court found no justification to modify or reverse the decision of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. The issues presented by the petitioner were primarily factual in nature. There was no evidence presented to demonstrate that these factual issues were resolved arbitrarily or without any basis in the records. On the contrary, the findings of the Arbitration Commission were adequately supported by the evidence presented by the parties during the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, the Supreme Court deferred to the factual determinations made by the arbitration tribunal.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari will lie only where a grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Voluntary Arbitrator is clearly shown. Certiorari jurisdiction is not to be equated with appellate jurisdiction, and the Court will not engage in a review of facts found nor even of law as interpreted or applied by the Arbitrator unless the supposed errors are so patent and gross and prejudicial as to amount to a grave abuse of discretion or an excess de pouvoir.