Philrock vs.

CIAC and Spouses Cid

Facts:
Spouses Cid filed a complaint for damages against Philrock and its 7 officers and engineers in
RTC Quezon City.
During the initial trial, RTC dismissed the case because the parties filed an Agreement to
Arbitrate to CIAC. The case was the. Referred therein. The parties appointed their arbitrators.
In their preliminary conferences, the parties couldnt agree whether:
1. Moral and exemplary damages and tort should be included as an issue with breach of
contract
2. The 7 officers and engineers of Philrock should be included in the proceedings,
although theyre not parties to the Agreement to Arbitrate.
Since at this point, settlement couldnt be ached, the parties requested CIAC to remand the
case to RTC. CIAC dismissed the case and referred the same to its court of origin.
Thereafter, spouses Cid filed a Motion to Set the case for hearing which was opposed by
Philrock.
June 13, 1995- RTC held that it no longer have jurisdiction over the case and ordered it to be
remanded to CIAC.
The proceedings resumed in CIAC. Philrock requested the suspension of the proceedings
claiming that the court has to clarify first its earlier ruling; that the courts order on June 13,
1995 was mistakenly based on Philrocks refusal to include the issue on damages, and that
the withdrawal of the case from CIAC was due to Philrocks opposition to include its 7 officers
and engineers as defendants.
Spouses Cid manifested its willingness to exclude them, just to expedite the proceedings. The
Arbitral tribunal denied Philrocks request for suspension. Philrock agreed but reserved its
right to file pleading as regards such court order.
Philrock file Motion to Dismiss and alleged that CIAC had lost its jurisdiction because both
parties had withdrawn their consent to arbitrate, but it was denied.
CIAC ordered Philrock to set 2 hearing dates and present evidence. Otherwise, it would be
deemed to have waived its right thereto.
Philrock filed a petition for Certiorari. Pending the petition, CIAC decided in favor of spouses
Cid and ordered Philrock to pay the excess cash payments for materials, refund the concrete
mix, moral and nominal damages, attorneys, litigation and arbitration fees.
CA filed a Petition for Review assailing CIACs jurisdiction. CA upheld CIACs jurisdiction,
holding that when CIAC acquired jurisdiction when the parties agreed to submit their dispute
to arbitration, it continued despite the order remanding the case to RTC. Jurisdiction remains
until the full termination of the case unless the law provides for the contrary.

Furthermore, issues concerning monetary awards were questions of fact, and were not
appropriate in a Petition for review on Certiorari. Under the rules, Arbitral awards are final &
unappealable, except for questions of law which can be appealed to SC. CA held that that the
awards were supported by substantial evidence and are under CIA s field of expertise, so the
court must accord such fact with great respect.
SC Philrock filed Petition for Review claiming that CA erred in upholding CIACs jurisdiction
after the latter dismissed the case and referred the same to RTC.
Issue: WON CIAC still has jurisdiction over the case?
Ruling:
1.YES. Sec. 4 EO 1008 expressly vests in CIAC the original and exclusive jurisdiction over
disputes arising from or connected with construction contracts entered into by the parties
who have agreed to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration.
Here, they submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of CIAC through their arbitration
agreement.
Philrocks contention that CIAc was divested of its jurisdiction when it dismissed and referred
the case to RTC because of the exclusion of the 7 officers and engineers has no merit. In fact,
spouses Cid had withdrawn their objection to exclude them and Philrock even participated in
the proceedings by signing and concluding the Terms of Reference, and even participated
in the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Philrock obviously maneuvered to avoid the RTC's final resolution of the dispute by arguing
that the regular court also lost jurisdiction after the arbitral tribunals order referring the case
back to the RTC. In so doing, petitioner conceded and estopped itself from further questioning
the jurisdiction of the CIAC. The Court will not countenance the effort of any party to subvert
or defeat the objective of voluntary arbitration for its own private motives. After submitting
itself to arbitration proceedings and actively participating therein, petitioner is estopped from
assailing the jurisdiction of the CIAC, merely because of an adverse decision.