DHY Realty & Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: DHY Realty & Development Corporation (DHY Realty) and Wing-An Construction Development Corporation (Wing-An) entered into a Construction Contract. Wing-An undertook construction work, including additional works for a fence, for which DHY Realty allegedly refused to pay the full contract price. After demands and failed negotiations, Wing-An filed a Complaint and Request for Arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC), impleading DHY Realty and its President, Domingo H. Yap. Wing-An provided DHY Realty's address as the Bel-Air Soho Condominium Corp. in Makati City (Makati Address). Procedural History: The CIAC sent a Letter-Notice to DHY Realty and Yap at the Makati Address. Subsequent notices and orders, including the appointment of arbitrators and the order for a preliminary conference, were also sent to the same address. However, some of these subsequent notices were returned to the CIAC with reasons such as "consignee unknown" or "move out." The CIAC, after directing Wing-An to ascertain DHY Realty's correct address, proceeded with the arbitration based on DHY Realty's latest General Information Sheet (GIS) which listed the Makati Address. DHY Realty and Yap failed to appear in the preliminary conference and evidentiary hearing. The CIAC rendered a Final Award in favor of Wing-An. Wing-An filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking an increase in the awarded amount. The CA, after several attempts at service, allowed substituted service and eventually denied Wing-An's Petition for Review, affirming the CIAC Final Award. DHY Realty later learned of the proceedings when a Notice of Garnishment was issued. DHY Realty filed a Formal Entry of Appearance with Omnibus Motion to quash the Writ of Execution and lift the Notice of Garnishment, arguing lack of proper service and denial of due process. The CIAC denied this motion, stating its jurisdiction had terminated. DHY Realty then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: DHY Realty filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the decisions, resolutions, awards, and orders of the CA and CIAC. DHY Realty argued that it was denied due process due to improper service of notices, claiming its principal address was in Pasig City (Pasig Address) and that Wing-An acted in bad faith by not disclosing this. DHY Realty sought the nullity of all assailed issuances.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the correct remedy to challenge the assailed issuances. Whether DHY Realty was properly served with the CIAC Tribunal's notices pertaining to the arbitration proceedings.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the Petition for Certiorari. The Court AFFIRMED the assailed issuances of the Court of Appeals and the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the appropriate remedy to challenge the assailed issuances. A special civil action for certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, DHY Realty had available remedies such as an appeal under Rule 43 to the CA assailing the CIAC Final Award, and subsequently a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court assailing the CA Decision. DHY Realty failed to file a motion for reconsideration before the CA, a general prerequisite for filing a Rule 65 petition, and did not provide any justification for bypassing the available appellate remedies. The Court emphasized that mere errors of law and judgment, which DHY Realty's arguments primarily involved, cannot be the subject of a Rule 65 petition; it requires grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. On the issue of proper service: The Court ruled that DHY Realty was duly notified of the arbitration proceedings. The CIAC initially relied on the Makati Address provided by Wing-An in its Complaint, which was also DHY Realty's address in its latest General Information Sheet (GIS) filed with the SEC. The initial Letter-Notice sent to this address was not returned and was received by a certain Sheena Garcia. While subsequent notices were returned, the CIAC acted judiciously by directing Wing-An to ascertain DHY Realty's correct address. Wing-An's reliance on the GIS, which is a sworn corporate document, was reasonable and legally sanctioned, especially since DHY Realty did not present evidence of a new GIS with an updated address. The Court noted that DHY Realty's own letterhead from 2015 also indicated the Makati Address as its principal office. The CIAC's subsequent actions, including proceeding with the arbitration despite DHY Realty's non-appearance and affording DHY Realty an opportunity to be heard on its motion to quash, were found to be in accordance with the CIAC Rules and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. The CA also exercised diligence in attempting service and properly allowed substituted service when personal service and mail failed, consistent with the Rules of Court.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to challenge the assailed issuances when a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, such as an appeal under Rule 43 or Rule 45, was available. Furthermore, the reliance on the General Information Sheet (GIS) for a corporation's address is reasonable and legally sanctioned, and service of notices to such address, even if subsequently found to be outdated, is considered valid if done in good faith and in accordance with the rules.