You are on page 1of 3

Uniwide Sales Realty and Resource Corporation v.

Titan-Ikeda Construction and


Development Corporation
G.R. No. 126619
December 20, 2006
TINGA, J.:
The case originated from an action for a sum of money filed by Titan-Ikeda
Construction and Development Corporation (Titan) against Uniwide Sales Realty and
Resources Corporation (Uniwide) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 119,
[3]
Pasay City arising from Uniwides non-payment of certain claims billed by Titan after
completion of three projects covered by agreements they entered into with each other.
Upon Uniwides motion to dismiss/suspend proceedings and Titans open court
manifestation agreeing to the suspension, Civil Case No. 98-0814 was suspended for it to
undergo arbitration.[4] Titans complaint was thus re-filed with the CIAC. [5] Before the CIAC,
Uniwide filed an answer which was later amended and re-amended, denying the material
allegations of the complaint, with counterclaims for refund of overpayments, actual and
exemplary damages, and attorneys fees. The agreements between Titan and Uniwide are
briefly described below.
FACTS:
[May 1991] - 1st Agreement (Project 1)
- was a written construction agreement entered into by Titan and Uniwide whereby
titan undertook to construct Uniwides Warehouse Club and Administration Building
in Libis Quezon City for P120,936,591.50 payable in monthly progress billings to be
certified by Uniwides representative.
- Parties stipulated that the building shall be completed not later than [Nov 30, 1991].
- Building was actually finished on [Feb 15, 1992] as found by CIAC
[July 1992] 2nd Agreement (Project 2)
- was entered into by the parties where Titan agreed to construct an additional floor
and to renovate the Warehouse of Uniwide at EDSA Central Market Area in
Mandaluyong City.
- There was no written contract executed for this project
- Construction was to be on the basis of drawings and specifications provided by
Uniwides Engineers
- Cost was estimated to be P21,301,075.77 inclusive of Titans 20% markup.
- Titan Conceded in its complaint to having received only P15m
- [Oct 1993] Project was completed.
[May 1992] 3rd Agreement (Project 3)
- Written in a construction contract, titan undertook the Uniwide sales deparment
store building in Caloocan City for the price of P118,000,000.00 payable in
progress billings to be certified by Uniwides representative.
- Project should be completed by [Feb 28, 1993] but it was completed and turned
over by [June 1993].

-Uniwide asserted in its petitions that:


a) it overpaid Titan for unauthorized additional works in Project 1 and 3
b) not liable to pay the VAT for project 1
c) it is entitled to liquidated damages for all the delays in Project 1 & 3
d) should not be liable for the deficiencies in the defectively constructed Project 2
-

An arbitral tribunal was established with a chairman and 2 members in accordance


to CIAC rules and procedure.
IT conducted preliminary conference with the parties and thereafter issued a Terms
of Reference (TOR) which were signed by the parties.
Tribunal also conducted ocular inspection, hearings, and received evidence the
parties consisting of affidavits subject to cross examination.
[Apr 17, 1995] after the parties submitted their memorandas, the Arbitral
Tribunal promulgated a decision
o Project 1 uniwide is absolved from any liability
o Project 2 Uniwide is absolved of any liability for VAT/ Liable for any unpaid
Balance P6,301,075.77 + 12% interest per annum from [Dec 19,
1992]
o Project 3 Uniwide is liable for unpaid balance P5,158,364.63 + 12% per
annum
[Apr 17,1995] Uniwide filed am motion for reconsideration which was denied by
CIAC, thus filing a petition for review against the Court of appeals which was also
denied by the same
Hence coming to the Supreme Court by a petition of review under rule 45

ISSUE:
WON the court should review the final judgement of CIAC
HELD:
No, as a rule, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies,
which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are
generally accorded not only respect, but also finality, especially when affirmed by the Court
of Appeals. In particular, factual findings of construction arbitrators are final and conclusive
and not reviewable by this Court on appeal. This rule, however admits of certain
exceptions.
In David v. Construction Industry and Arbitration Commission, we ruled that, as
exceptions, factual findings of construction arbitrators may be reviewed by this Court when
the petitioner proves affirmatively that: (1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud or
other undue means; (2) there was evident partiality or corruption of the arbitrators or of any
of them; (3) the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to hear evidence pertinent
and material to the controversy; (4) one or more of the arbitrators were disqualified to act
as such under Section nine of Republic Act No. 876 and willfully refrained from disclosing
such disqualifications or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have
been materially prejudiced; or (5) the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly

executed them, that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted
to them was not made.
Other recognized exceptions are as follows: (1) when there is a very clear showing
of grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack or loss of jurisdiction as when a party was
deprived of a fair opportunity to present its position before the Arbitral Tribunal or when an
award is obtained through fraud or the corruption of arbitrators, (2) when the findings of the
Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the CIAC, and (3) when a party is deprived of
administrative due process.

You might also like