G.R. No.

169332
February 11, 2008
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.
WORLD INTERACTIVE NETWORK SYSTEMS (WINS) JAPAN CO., LTD., respondent.
FACTS
ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation entered into a licensing agreement with World
Interactive Network Systems Japan Co., Ltd., a foreign corporation licensed under the laws of
Japan, whereby granting the latter the exclusive license to distribute and sublicense the
distribution of the television service known as "The Filipino Channel" in Japan.
A dispute arose between the parties when ABS-CBN accused WINS of inserting nine
episodes of WINS WEEKLY, a weekly 35-minute community news program for Filipinos in
Japan, into the TFC programming, claimed that these were "unauthorized insertions"
constituting a material breach of their agreement.
The parties appointed Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar to act as sole arbitrator. The
arbitrator ruled in favor of WINS Japan. He held that petitioner gave its approval to WINS
Japan for the airing of WINS WEEKLY as shown by a series of written exchanges between the
parties. That if there really been a material breach of the agreement, ABS-CBN should have
terminated the same instead of sending a mere notice to terminate said agreement.
ABS-CBN filed in the CA a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court or, in
the alternative, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the same Rules, with application for
temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. It alleged serious errors of
fact and law and/or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of the arbitrator.
WINS Japan, on the other hand, filed a petition for confirmation of arbitral award
before the Regional Trial Court. It was later held in abeyance pending appeal in the CA.
The CA rendered the decision dismissing ABS-CBNs petition for lack of jurisdiction. It
stated that as the TOR itself provided that the arbitrator's decision shall be final and
unappealable and that no motion for reconsideration shall be filed, then the petition for
review must fail. It ruled that it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over questions relating to
arbitration. It held that the only instance it can exercise jurisdiction over an arbitral award is
an appeal from the trial court's decision confirming, vacating or modifying the arbitral award.
Hence, the petition.

ISSUE
whether or not an aggrieved party in a voluntary arbitration dispute may avail of, directly in
the CA, a petition for review under Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, instead of filing a petition to vacate the award in the RTC when the grounds
invoked to overturn the arbitrators decision are other than those for a petition to vacate an
arbitral award enumerated under RA 876.

RULING
YES.
Under the RA 876, the RTC has jurisdiction over questions relating to arbitration such
as a petition to vacate an arbitral award. The SC held that the RTC must issue an order
vacating an arbitral award only in any one of the cases enumerated in Art. 24 of RA 876.
As RA 876 did not expressly provide for errors of fact and/or law and grave abuse of
discretion as grounds for maintaining a petition to vacate an arbitral award in the RTC, it
necessarily follows that a party may not avail of the latter remedy on the grounds of errors of
fact and/or law or grave abuse of discretion to overturn an arbitral award. Subsequently, it
should be dismissed.
In cases not falling under any of the aforementioned grounds to vacate an award, the
Court has already made several pronouncements that a petition for review under Rule 43 or a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed of in the CA. Which one would depend on
the grounds relied upon by petitioner. Thus, ABS-CBNs contention that it may avail of a
petition for review under Rule 43 under the circumstances of this case is correct. It is well
within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether any instrumentality of the
Government, such as a voluntary arbitrator, has gravely abused its discretion in the exercise
of its functions and prerogatives.
However, the SC sustained the dismissal of its petition by the CA because the remedy
that ABS-CBN availed of, entitled "alternative petition for review under Rule 43 or petition for
certiorari under Rule 65," was wrong. The SC held the remedies of appeal and certiorari are
mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.
Proper issues that may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 43 pertain to
errors of fact, law or mixed questions of fact and law. While a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 should only limit itself to errors of jurisdiction, that is, grave abuse of discretion
amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. Moreover, it cannot be availed of where appeal
is the proper remedy or as a substitute for a lapsed appeal.
A careful reading of the assigned errors reveals that the real issues calling for the CA's
resolution were less the alleged grave abuse of discretion exercised by the arbitrator and
more about the arbitrators appreciation of the issues and evidence presented by the parties.
Therefore, the issues clearly fall under the classification of errors of fact and law questions
which may be passed upon by the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43. An appeal taken
either to the SC or the CA by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.
Wherefore, the SC denied ABS-CBNs petition.

G.R. No. 132848-49

June 26, 2001
PHILROCK, INC., petitioner, vs.
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION COMMISSION and Spouses VICENTE and NELIA CID,
respondents.
FACTS
Sps. Cid were purchasers of ready-mix concrete from Philrock, Inc. The concrete
delivered by the latter turned out to be of substandard quality. As a result, Sps. Cid sustained
damages when the structures they built using such cement developed cracks and honeycombs.
Consequently, the construction of their residence had to be stopped.
The spouses filed a complaint for damages against Philrock and seven of its officers
and engineers with the RTC of Quezon City. The trial court dismissed the case and referred
the same to the CIAC because the Cid spouses and Philrock had filed an Agreement to
Arbitrate with the CIAC. Since no settlement can be reached by the parties, they requested
the case be remanded back again to the trial court, to which it had declared it no longer had
jurisdiction over the case and ordered the records of the case to be remanded back again to
CIAC. Philrock, Inc. while contending the supposed jurisdiction of CIAC, the latter rendered a
decision in favor of the spouses. Thus, Philrock, Inc. filed a petition for review before the CA,
to which the latter dismissed. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE
Whether or not the CIAC could take jurisdiction over the case of Respondent Cid
spouses against Petitioner Philrock after the case had been dismissed by both the RTC and the
CIAC.
RULING
YES.
The SC disagreed with the Philrock, Inc. averment that the CIAC lost jurisdiction over
the arbitration case after both parties had withdrawn their consent to arbitrate. Section 4 of
Executive Order 1008 expressly vests in the CIAC original and exclusive jurisdiction over
disputes arising from or connected with construction contracts entered into by parties that
have agreed to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration. It is undisputed that the parties
submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Commission by virtue of their Agreement to
Arbitrate dated November 24, 1993.

Philrock, Inc. claimed that the CIAC was divested of its jurisdiction to hear and decide
the case when agreement to arbitrate was withdrawn by the Sps. Cid because of the exclusion
of the seven engineers of Philrock, Inc. in the arbitration case. This withdrawal became the
basis for the CIAC Order dismissing the arbitration case and referring the dispute back to the
RTC.
The SC held such contention is untenable. First, Sps. Cid removed the obstacle to the
continuation of the arbitration, precisely by withdrawing their objection to the exclusion of
the seven engineers. Second, Philrock, Inc. continued participating in the arbitration even
after the CIAC Order had been issued. It even concluded and signed the Terms of Reference in
which the parties stipulated the circumstances leading to the dispute; summarized their
respective positions, issues, and claims; and identified the composition of the tribunal of
arbitrators. The document clearly confirms both parties intention and agreement to submit
the dispute to voluntary arbitration. In view of this fact, we fail to see how the CIAC could
have been divested of its jurisdiction.
Finally, after submitting itself to arbitration proceedings and actively participating
therein, Philrock, Inc. is estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the CIAC, merely because
the latter rendered an adverse decision.