DENR v. United Planners

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR) v. UNITED PLANNERS CONSULTANTS , INC.,
G.R. No. 212081, February 23, 2015

FACTS:

• July 26, 1993 - Petitioner, through the Land Management Bureau (LMB), entered into an Agreement for Consultancy Services (Consultancy Agreement) with respondent United Planners Consultants, Inc. in connection with the LMB’s Land Resource Management Master Plan Project (LRMMP). Under the Consultancy Agreement, petitioner committed to pay a total contract price of P4,337,141.00, based on a predetermined percentage corresponding to the particular stage of work accomplished.
• December 1994 - Respondent completed the work required, which petitioner formally accepted on December 27, 1994. However, petitioner was able to pay only 47% of the total contract price in the amount of P2,038,456.30.
• October 25, 1994 - The Commission on Audit (COA) released the Technical Services Office Report (TSO) finding the contract price of the Agreement to be 84.14% excessive. This notwithstanding, petitioner, in a letter dated December 10, 1998, acknowledged its liability to respondent in the amount of P2,239,479.60 and assured payment at the soonest possible time.
• For failure to pay its obligation under the Consultancy Agreement despite repeated demands, respondent instituted a Complaint against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Due to the existence of Arbitration clause, the respondent moved for the issue to be tried through arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal rendered its Award dated May 7, 2010 (Arbitral Award) in favor of respondent
• Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Arbitral Tribunal claimed that it had already lost jurisdiction over the case after it had submitted to the RTC its Report together with a copy of the Arbitral Award
• March 30, 2011, the RTC merely noted petitioner’s aforesaid motions, finding that copies of the Arbitral Award appear to have been sent to the parties by the Arbitral Tribunal, including the OSG, contrary to petitioner’s claim. On the other hand, the RTC confirmed the Arbitral Award pursuant to Rule 11.2 (A)36 of the Special ADR Rules and ordered petitioner to pay respondent the costs of confirming the award, as prayed for, in the total amount of P50,000.00. From this order, petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration.
• June 15, 2011 - Respondent moved for the issuance of a writ of execution, to which no comment/opposition was filed by petitioner despite the RTC’s directive therefor. In an Order dated September 12, 2011, the RTC granted respondent’s motion. Petitioner moved to quash the writ of execution, positing that respondent was not entitled to its monetary claims. It also claimed that the issuance of said writ was premature since the RTC should have first resolved its May 19, 2010 Motion for Reconsideration and June 1, 2010 Manifestation and Motion, and not merely noted them, thereby violating its right to due process.
• In an Order dated July 9, 2012, the RTC denied petitioner’s motion to quash.
• July 12, 2012 - Petitioner received the RTC’s Order dated July 9, 2012 denying its motion to quash. Dissatisfied, it filed on September 10, 2012 a petition for certiorari before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 126458, averring in the main that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in confirming and ordering the execution of the Arbitral Award.
• March 26, 2014 - The CA dismissed the certiorari petition on two (2) grounds, namely: (a) the petition essentially assailed the merits of the Arbitral Award which is prohibited under Rule 19 of the Special ADR Rules and (b) the petition was filed out of time, having been filed way beyond 15 days from notice of the RTC’s July 9, 2012 Order, in violation of Rule 19.2852 in relation to Rule 19.853 of said Rules which provide that a special civil action for certiorari must be filed before the CA within 15 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be annulled or set aside (or until July 27, 2012). Aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant petition.

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.

HELD:

• The petition is DENIED, Republic Act No. (RA) 9285, otherwise known as the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004,” 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.
• May 7, 2010, the Arbitral Tribunal rendered the Arbitral Award in favor of respondent. Under Section 17.2, Rule 17 of the CIAC Rules, no motion for reconsideration or new trial may be sought, but any of the parties may file a motion for correction of the final award, which shall interrupt the running of the period for appeal, Moreover, the parties may appeal the final award to the CA through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.