[G.R. Nos. 132848-49.

June 26, 2001]

PHILROCK, INC., vs. CONSR!CION
IN"!SR# $R%IR$ION
CO&&ISSION 'n( S)ouses
*IC+N+ 'n( N+LI$ CI"
,'-.s/ On September 14, 1992, the Cid
spouses, herein private respondents, filed a
Complaint for damages against Philrock and
seven of its officers and engineers with the
!C of "ue#on Cit$%
&On 'ecember (, 199), the initial trial date,
the trial court issued an Order dismissing the
case and referring the same to the C*+C
because the Cid spouses and Philrock had
filed an +greement to +rbitrate with the
C*+C%
&!hereafter, preliminar$ conferences were
held among the parties and their appointed
arbitrators% ,o common ground could be
reached b$ the parties, hence, on +pril 2,
1994, both the Cid spouses and Philrock
re-uested that the case be remanded to the
trial court%
&On .une 1), 199/, the trial court declared
that it no longer had 0urisdiction over the
case and ordered the records of the case to
be remanded anew to the C*+C for arbitral
proceedings%
&On September 12, 199/, Philrock filed its
1otion to 'ismiss, alleging therein that the
C*+C had lost 0urisdiction to hear the
arbitration case due to the parties2
withdrawal of their consent to arbitrate% !he
motion was denied b$ C*+C%
*ssue3 4hether or not the C*+C could take
0urisdiction over the case of espondent Cid
spouses against Petitioner Philrock after the
case had been dismissed b$ both the !C
and the C*+C%
567'3 Section 4 of 68ecutive Order 199:
e8pressl$ vests in the C*+C original and
e8clusive 0urisdiction over disputes arising
from or connected with construction
contracts entered into b$ parties that have
agreed to submit their dispute to voluntar$
arbitration%
*t is undisputed that the parties
submitted themselves to the 0urisdiction of
the Commission b$ virtue of their +greement
to +rbitrate dated ,ovember 24,
199)% Signatories to the +greement were
president of Philippine ock Products for
petitioner, and ,elia ;% Cid and +tt$%
6steban +% <autista for respondent spouses%
!his contention is untenable% First,
private respondents removed the obstacle to
the continuation of the arbitration, precisel$
b$ withdrawing their ob0ection to the
e8clusion of the seven engineers% Second,
petitioner continued participating in the
arbitration even after the C*+C Order had
been issued% *t even concluded and signed
the !erms of eference on +ugust 21, 199/,
in which the parties stipulated the
circumstances leading to the dispute=
summari#ed their respective positions,
issues, and claims= and identified the
composition of the tribunal of
arbitrators% !he document clearl$ confirms
both parties> intention and agreement to
submit the dispute to voluntar$
arbitration% *n view of this fact, we fail to
see how the C*+C could have been divested
of its 0urisdiction%
Finally, as pointed out b$ the solicitor
general, petitioner maneuvered to avoid the
!C>s final resolution of the dispute b$
arguing that the regular court also lost
0urisdiction after the arbitral tribunal>s +pril
1), 1994 Order referring the case back to
the !C% *n so doing, petitioner conceded
and estopped itself from further -uestioning
the 0urisdiction of the C*+C% !he Court will
not countenance the effort of an$ part$ to
subvert or defeat the ob0ective of voluntar$
arbitration for its own private motives% +fter
submitting itself to arbitration proceedings
and activel$ participating therein, petitioner
is estopped from assailing the 0urisdiction of
the C*+C, merel$ because the latter
rendered an adverse decision%