Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

WHAT IS VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION: - Articles of Agreement which was signed by all parties and

- involves the reference of a dispute to an impartial body, the notarized “also provides that the ‘Contract Documents’ therein
members of which are chosen by the parties themselves, listed ‘shall be deemed an integral part of this Agreement,’
which parties freely consent in advance to abide by the arbitral and one of the said documents is the ‘Conditions of
award issued after proceedings where both parties had the Contract’ which contains the Arbitration Clause.”
opportunity to be heard.
 “Reasonableness” is a relative term and the question of whether
OBJECTIVE: the time within which an act has to be done is reasonable depends
- provide a speedy and inexpensive method of settling disputes on attendant circumstances.
by allowing the parties to avoid the formalities, delay, expense - The arbitration clause provides for a “reasonable time” within
and aggravation which commonly accompany ordinary which the parties may avail of the relief under that clause.
litigation, especially litigation which goes through the entire - This Court finds that under the circumstances obtaining in this
hierarchy of courts. case, a one-month period from the time the parties held a
conference on July 12, 1993 until private respondent SPI
(1) CHUNG FU vs CA notified petitioner that it was invoking the arbitration clause, is
a reasonable time.
 Chung Fu and Roblecor entered into a construction agreement
wherevy Roblecor construct factory complex. (3) HI-PRECISION vs LIM KIM STEEL BUILDERS
 Agreed that in the event of dispute, stipulated that the issue shall
be submitted for resolution before a single arbitrator chose by  Hi-Precision entered in to contract with Steel Builders for
parties. construction project however incurred numerous delays. Steel
 Dispute arose: formed arbitration agreement which provides “final Builders sought for payment of unpaid and filed Request for
and unappealable” and “no further judicial recourse if either Arbitration.
party disagrees with the whole or part of the award”  The Arbitral Tribunal gave an award and ordered Hi-Precision to
pay Steel Builders.
WON estopped from question arbitration award based on the  Hi-Precision asks the SC to correct legal errors committed by
stipulations in arbitration agreement – NO. Arbitral Tribunal which at the same time constitutive of GADALEJ
on the part of the Arbitral Tribunal
RULING:
IF factual circumstances under these provisions are present – SUBJECT RULING:
TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AWARD  In a petition for review of an arbitration award, the Arbitral
 Art. 2044 NCC - the finality of the arbitrator’s award is not Tribunal should be impleaded
absolute and without exceptions. - We note that the Arbitral Tribunal has not been impleaded as
 conditions described in Articles 2038, 2039 and 2040 applicable to a respondent in the Petition at bar.
both compromises and arbitrations are obtaining, the arbitrators’ - The CIAC has indeed been impleaded; however, the Arbitral
award may be annulled or rescinded Award was not rendered by the CIAC, but rather by the Arbitral
 Sections 24 and 25 of the Arbitration Law, there are grounds for Tribunal.
vacating, modifying or rescinding an arbitrator’ award  Moreover, under Section 20 of EO 1008, it is the Arbitral Tribunal,
or the single Arbitrator, with the concurrence of the CIAC, which
 Even decisions of administrative agencies which are declared issues the writ of execution requiring any sheriff or other proper
“final” by law are NOT EXEMPT from judicial review when so officer to execute the award.
warranted  Questions of fact cannot be raised in proceedings before the SC
 EO 1008 created an arbitration facility to which the construction
 Voluntary arbitrators by the nature of their functions act in a quasi- industry in the Philippines can have recourse. Supreme Court will
judicial capacity, therefore, that their decisions should not be review issues of facts previously presented before the Arbitral
beyond the scope of the power of judicial review of this Court Tribunal only where there is a very clear showing that, in
reaching its factual conclusions, the Tribunal committed an
- We find that the voluntary arbitrator committed grave abuse of error so egregious as to constitute a grave abuse of discretion
discretion and exceeded his powers in granted unjustified
extra compensation to respondent – all of which are ground (4) ABSCBN vs WINS
for vacating award in Sec. 24(d) of Arbitration Law.
 ABSCBN entered into agreement with WINS and was granted
(2) BF CORP vs CA exclusive license to distribute TFC. However WINS inserted 9
episodes which constituted material breach so ABSCBN wanted to
 Several agreements were entered and made for EDSA Shangri La terminate and thus the arbitration suit.
Mall however BF Corp incurred delay thus this dispute.  Arbitral award was in favor of WINS so ABS filed in the CA petition
 Bayani Fernando and Shang President agreed on the Articles of for review under Rule 42 OR in the alternative a petition for
Agreement and was even duly notarized. certiorari under Rule 65.
 Shangri La filed motion to suspend and submitted a copy of the  WON ABS may avail of such instead of filing a petition to vacate
condition of the contract containing arbitration clause. the award
 BF contends that no arbitration clause in the contract between the
parties RULING:
 RA 876 itself mandates that it is the RTC, which has jurisdiction
RULING: over questions relating to arbitration, such as a petition to vacate
 A contract may be encompassed in several instruments even an arbitral award.
though every instrument is not signed by the parties, since it is  As RA 876 did not expressly provide for errors of fact and/or law
sufficient if the unsigned instruments are clearly identified or and grave abuse of discretion (proper grounds for a petition for
referred to and made part of the signed instrument or instruments review under Rule 43 and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65,
- A contract need not be contained in a single writing. It may be respectively) as grounds for maintaining a petition to vacate an
collected from several different writings which do not conflict arbitral award in the RTC
with each other and which, when connected, show the parties, - it necessarily follows that a party may not avail of the
subject matter, terms and consideration, as in contracts latter remedy on the grounds of errors of fact and/or law
entered into by correspondence. or grave abuse of discretion to overturn an arbitral award.
 A petition to vacate filed in the RTC which is not based on the
 The subscription of the principal agreement effectively covers the grounds enumerated in Section 24 of RA 876 should be dismissed.
other documents incorporated by reference therein
 The proper remedy from the adverse decision of a voluntary
arbitrator, if errors of fact and/or law are raised, is a petition  Ostensibly, while the rules allow the trial court to suspend its
for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court proceedings to encourage use of alternative mechanisms of
 Any agreement stipulating that “the decision of the arbitrator shall dispute resolution, in the instant case, the TC only gave the parties
be final and unappealable” and “that no further judicial recourse if 15 days to conclude a deal. This was, to say the least, a passive
either party disagrees with the whole or any part of the arbitrator’s and paltry attempt of the court in its task of persuading litigants
award may be availed of” cannot be held to preclude in proper to agree upon a reasonable concession
cases the power of judicial review which is inherent in courts.
(8) CAPITOL vs NLRC
(5) REAL BANK VS SAMSUNG
 Union filed a Notice of Strike with the NCMB – serving a copy
 TRIAL COURT dismiss cases failure to appear in mediation thereof.
 Samsung Mabuhay was not notified of mediation conference – sent  Petitioner contends that submission of notice of strike vote to
to counsel who had validly withdrawn already NCMB is required by the Omnibus Rules of the Labor Code.

RULING: Mediation is part of pre-trial and failure of plaintiff to appear, RULING: We agree with Petitioner.
grants judges the discretion to dismiss  Respondent union failed to comply with Sec. 10 of Rule 22 of the
Omnibus Rules of NLRC to a union intending to stage a strike is
(6) LM POWER vs CAPITOL mandated to notify the NCMB of the meeting for the conduct of
strike vote, at least 24 hours prior to such meeting
 Petitioner filed with RTC complaint for collection of money  A union is mandated to notify the NCMB of the impending dispute
 Respondent filed M2D: complaint was premature absence of via a notice of strike. Thereafter, the NCMB through its conciliator-
recourse to arbitration mediators
 The failure of a union to comply with the requirement of the giving
RULING: Respondent’s correct. of notice to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB)
 When a contract contains a clause for the submission of a future at least 24 hours prior to the holding of a strike vote meeting will
controversy to arbitration, it is not necessary for the parties to render the subsequent strike staged by the union illegal
enter into a submission agreement before the claimant may  Unless and until the NCMB is notified at least 24 hours of the
invoke the jurisdiction of CIAC union’s decision to conduct a strike vote, and the date, place, and
 The instant case involves technical discrepancies that are better time thereof, the NCMB cannot determine for itself whether to
left to any arbitral body that has expertise in the areas supervise a strike vote meeting or not and insure its peaceful and
 The inclusion of the arbitration clause in a contract does not regular conduct.
ipso facto divest the courts of jurisdiction to pass upon the
findings of the arbitral bodies – because awards are still (9) POSITOS VS CHUA
JUDICIALLY REVIEWABLE
 Being an inexpensive, speedy and amicable method of settling  Unlawful detainer case referred to the Lupon. Chua did not appear
disputes, arbitration—along with mediation, conciliation and during the proceedings but sent a representative on his behalf. No
negotiation—is encouraged by the Supreme Court settlement reached.
 Recourse to the CIAC may now be availed of whenever a  Petitioner contends that failure to appear personally during the
contract contains a clause for the submission of a future proceedings is equivalent to non-compliance with RA 7160 (Lupon
controversy to arbitration, notwithstanding the reference to a proceedings) rendering case dismissable
different arbitration institution or arbitral body in such contract or
submission. RULING:
 Non-compliance with conciliation requirement under the LGC (RA
(7) RCBC vs MAGWIN 7160) affects the sufficiency of a party’s cause of action and
renders the complaint susceptible to dismissal on the ground of
 TRIAL COURT: Reconsidered RCBC’s contention and issued an prematurity.
order which directed the parties to submit within 15 days a
compromise agreement. (10) UNIWIDE vs TITAN-IKEDA
 However, failed to compromise since only one party affixed his
signature, filed Manifestation and Motion to Set Case for Pre-Trial  Nonpayment of claims billed after completion of 3 projects. Uniwide
– denied by TC claims that it is entitled to the liquidated damages for delay incurred
– CIAC rejected.
RULING: Failure to compromise does not warrant a procedural  Petitioner insists that the CIAC should have applied Section 5 Rule
sanction. 10 of the ROC which provides that issues not raised in the
 The proper course of action that should have been taken by the pleadings but tried w/ consent of parties, treated as if been raised
court a quo, upon manifestation of the parties of their willingness to in the pleadings.
discuss a settlement, is to suspend the proceedings and allow
them reasonable time to come to terms; RULING: Petitioner wrong
a) If willingness to discuss a possible compromise is  As an arbitration body, the Construction Industry Arbitration
expressed by one or both parties Commission (CIAC) can only resolve issues brought before it
b) If it appears that one of the parties before by the parties through the Terms of Reference (TOR) which
commencement of the proceeding offered to discuss a functions similarly as a pre-trial brief.
possible compromise but other party refused. - Uniwide’s claim for liquidated damages was not raised
as an issue in the TOR or any modified or amended
 Despite efforts of the TC and parties the negotiations still fail, only version of it, the CIAC cannot make a ruling on it.
then should the action continue as if no suspension had taken  A party may not be deprived of due process of law by an
place. amendment of the complaint as provided in ROC, Uniwide
introduced the claim for liquidated damages only in its
 While the rules allow the trial court to suspend its proceedings memorandum submitted to the CIAC at the end of the arbitration
consistent with the policy to encourage the use of proceeding.
alternative mechanisms of dispute resolution, the grant to - Verily Titan was not given a chance to present evidence
to counter claim of LD.
the parties of only 15 days to conclude a deal is, to say the
 Aware of the objective of voluntary arbitration in the labor field, in
least, a passive and paltry attempt of the court a quo in its the construction industry, and in any other area for that matter, the
task of persuading litigants to agree upon a reasonable Court will not assist one or the other or even both parties in
concession.
any effort to subvert or defeat that objective for their private
purposes; RULING:
 Court will not permit the parties to relitigate before it the  Where petitioners are not parties to a contract with an
issues of facts previously presented and argued before the arbitration clause, they cannot be compelled to submit to
Arbitral Tribunal, save only where a clear showing is made that, the arbitration proceedings;
Arbitral Tribunal committed an error so egregious and hurtful to one - It is established that petitioners in the present cases who
party as to constitute a grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack have presented legitimate interests in the resolution of
or loss of jurisdiction. the controversy are not parties to the PIATCO Contracts.
Accordingly, they cannot be bound by the arbitration
(11) PHILROCK vs CIAC clause provided for in the ARCA and hence, cannot
be compelled to submit to arbitration proceedings.
(RTC – CIAC – RTC – CIAC)
 A speedy and decisive resolution of all the critical issues in the
 Sps. Cid filed complaint against Philrock and 7 other officers in RTC present controversy, including those raised by petitioners, cannot
- dismissed and referred to CIAC because the parties filed an be made before an arbitral tribunal.
Agreement to Arbitrate with the CIAC. - The object of arbitration is precisely to allow an
 No common ground reached in the CIAC both parties requested expeditious determination of a dispute. This objective
the case be remanded to the TC. would not be met if this Court were to allow the parties to
 RTC declared it no longer had jurisdiction over the case and settle the cases by arbitration as there are certain issues
ordered to be remanded to CIAC involving nonparties to the PIATCO Contracts which the
 Philrock requested to suspend – true reason for withdrawal of the arbitral tribunal will not be equipped to resolve.
case from CIAC due to inclusion of 7 other officers who did not give
consent to arbitration (13) DFA and BSP vs Falcon
- Sps. Cid excluded the
- Arbitral tribunal denied suspension and finalized TOR  DFA and BCA entered in agreement for implementation of
 Philrock contends CIAC has lost jurisdiction to hear arbitration case machine-readable passport and visa project however dispute arose
due to party’s withdrawal to arbitrate. when they imputed breach against one another.
 DFA and BSP entered into MOA for BSP to provide DFA E-
RULING: CIAC did not lose jurisdiction over the case. passports.
 Section 4 of Executive Order (EO) 1008 expressly vests in the  BCA filed a Petition for Interim Relief under Sec. 28 of ADR Act (RA
CIAC original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from 9285) with RTC praying for the issuance of TRO restrating DFA
or connected with construction contracts entered into by and BSP.
parties that have agreed to submit their dispute to voluntary  DFA contends that BCA has no cause of action since RTC is
arbitration prohibited from issuing a TRO against national government
- It is undisputed that the parties submitted themselves to projects such as E-Passport, pursuant to Sec. 3 RA 8975.
the jurisdiction of the CIAC by virtue of their Agreement
to Arbitrate. RULING: TC had jurisdiction to issue a WPI against the e-Passport
 Philrock claims the Agreeement was withdrawn because of Project
exclusion of 7 officers, however such is untenable.  RA 9285 general law applicable to all matters and controversies to
- Sps. Cid removed the obstacle to the continuation be resolved through ADR methods. This law allows RTC to grant
- Philrock continued participating in the arbitration and interim or provisional relief, including preliminary injunction, to
concluded and signed TOR parties in an arbitration case prior to the constitution of the arbitral
- The document clearly confirms both parties tribunal.
intention and agreement to submit to voluntary  However, must give way to a special law governing national
arbitration. government projects, RA 8975 which prohibits courts, except the
 The Supreme Court will not countenance the effort of any party to SC, from issuing TROs and WPI in cases involving national
subvert or defeat the objective of voluntary arbitration for its own government projects
private motives. - prohibition in RA8975 is inoperative in this case,
 Voluntary arbitrators, by the nature of their functions, act in quasi- since DFA failed to prove that the e-Passport Project is
judicial capacity, such that their decisions are within the scope of national government project as defined therein. Hence,
judicial review. e-Passport is not covered by the Build-Operate-Transfer
- factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies that have law.
acquired expertise are generally accorded great respect
and even finality, if they are supported by substantial (14) TRANSFIELD vs LUZON HYDRO CORP
evidence.
(2004 CASE)
(12) AGAN vs PIATCO  Transfield entered into a turn-key contract with Luzon Hydro Corp
(LHC). Under the contract, Transfield were to construct a hydro-
 DOTC bidding process for development of NAIA 3 thru Build- electric plants in Benguet and Ilocos.
Operate-Transfer Agreement. AEDC submitted unsolicited  The contract provides for a period for which the project is to be
proposal. PIATCO won the bidding and signed the 1987 completed and also allows for the extension of the period provided
Concession Agreement, at the end of the period PIATCO will that the extension is based on justifiable grounds such as fortuitous
transfer the airport to MIAA. event.
 Government and PIATCO signed ARCA (amended and restated  In order to guarantee performance by Transfield, two stand-by LOC
concession agreement) which included an arbitration agreement. were required to be opened.
 Meanwhile, the MIAA which is charged with the maintenance and  During the construction of the plant, Transfield requested for
operation of the NAIA 1 and 2, had existing concession contracts extension of time citing typhoon and various disputes delaying the
with various service providers to offer international airline airport construction. LHC did not give due course to the extension of
services the period prayed for but referred the matter to arbitration
- workers of the international airline service providers filed committee
before the SC a petition for prohibition enjoining the  Because of the delay in the construction of the plant, LHC called
enforcement of the agreements. on the stand-by LOC because of default.
- They said the transfer to NAIA 3 could cost them their  However, the demand was objected by Transfield on the ground
jobs, since under the agreements, PIATCO is not that there is still pending arbitration on their request for extension
required to honor MIAA’s existing concession contracts of time.
with various service providers for international airline
airport services. RULING:
 Transfield’s argument that any dispute must first be resolved by the - The Company and the Union agree that in case of
parties, whether through negotiations or arbitration, before the dispute or conflict in the interpretation or application of
beneficiary is entitled to call on the letter of credit in essence would any of the provisions of this Agreement, or enforcement
convert the letter of credit into a mere guarantee. of Company policies, the same shall be settled through
 Jurisprudence has laid down a clear distinction between a letter of negotiation, conciliation or voluntary arbitration.
credit and a guarantee in that the settlement of a dispute - From the foregoing, it is clear that the parties, in the first
between the parties is not a pre-requisite for the release of place, really intended to bring to conciliation or voluntary
funds under a LOC. arbitration any dispute or conflict in the interpretation or
 It is premature and absurd to conclude that the draws on the application of the provisions of their CBA
Securities were outright fraudulent where the International
Chamber of Commerce and the Construction Industry Authority  It is only in the absence of a CBAthat parties may opt to submit the
Commission have not ruled with finality on the existence of default. dispute to either the NLRC or to voluntary arbitration
- The pendency of the arbitration proceedings would not
per se make LHC’s draws on the Securities wrongful or (27) AGBAYANI VS CA
fraudulent for there was nothing in the Contract which
would indicate that the parties intended that all disputes  Court stenographer filed a criminal complaint for grave oral
regarding delay should first be settled through arbitration defamation against Legal Researcher.
before LHC would be allowed to call upon the Securities.  DOJ Usec and CA: dismissed the case for non-compliance with the
Katarungang Brgy Law under RA 7160 (LGC)
(2006 CASE)
RULING:
 The adjudication of the case proved to be a 2 stage process, 1)  Undeniably, both are residents of Las Piñas City and both work at
forum shopping and 2) question of propriety of calling on the the RTC, and the incident which is the subject matter of the case
securities during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings. happened in their workplace.
 LHC claims there is forum shopping in the 4 cases:  Agbayani’s complaint should have undergone the mandatory
1) Civil case for Confirmation, Recognition and barangay conciliation for possible amicable settlement with
Enforcement of 3rd Partial Award respondent Genabe, pursuant to Sections 408 and 409 of LGC.
2) ICC Case – request for arbitration
3) Petition for review – TPI claimed that calling on LOC The compulsory process of arbitration is a pre-condition for the filing
premature of the complaint in court.
4) Civil case - Complaint for Injunction with prayer for Where the complaint
TRO/WPI against LHC from calling on securities a) Did not state that it is one of excepted cases, or
b) it did not allege prior availment of said conciliation process, or
RULING: c) did not have a certification that no conciliation had been
 The pendency of arbitral proceedings does not foreclose resort to reached by the parties, the case should be dismissed.
the courts for provisional reliefs.
- The Rules of the ICC, which governs the parties’ arbitral GR: All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant
dispute, allows the application of a party to a judicial to the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law and prior recourse
authority for interim or conservatory measures. thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any
- Section 14 of RA 876 (The Arbitration Law) recognizes government offices.
the rights of any party to petition the court to take
measures to safeguard and/or conserve any matter XPNS:
which is the subject of the dispute in arbitration. 1) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision
- R.A. 9285, otherwise known as the “ADR Act of 2004,” or instrumentality thereof;
allows the filing of provisional or interim measures
2) Where one party is a public officer or employee
with the regular courts whenever the arbitral tribunal o and the dispute relates to the performance of his official
has no power to act or to act effectively. functions;

 Applicability of NY Convention in PH is confimed by Sec. 42 of RA 3) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities
9285 for said law also provides that the application for recognition and municipalities,
and enforcement of such awards shall be filed with the RTC. o unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference
to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
- TPI’s resort to RTC for Recognition of 3rd partial
Award for although it was proper, was premature. 4) Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or juridical
The ICC Arbitral Tribunal ruled that LHC wrongfully drew entities,
upon securities, however since there is no order of o since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay
payment or return of proceeds provided in the Award, conciliation proceedings either as complainants or
TPI is not entitled to any damages or interests due to respondents
LHC’s drawing on the securities.
5) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of
different cities or municipalities,
(26) ESTATE OF DULAY vs ABOITIZ o except where such barangay units adjoin each other and
the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to
 Widow claiming for death benefits of $90k pursuant to Art. 20(A) 1 amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
of the CBA.
 The NLRC granted the deceased’s brother P20K pursuant to Art. 6) Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of
imprisonment exceeding 1 year or a fine of over P5K
20(A) 2 of the CBA. – Widow claim it is considered only as advance
payment of total claim of S90k. 7) Offenses where there is no private offended party
 Aboitiz contends that NLRC has no jurisdiction.
 CA referred the case to the NCMB for it involves the interpretation 8) Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice
and application of the provisions of the CBA. As such jurisdiction from being committed or further continued, specifically the following:
belongs to the Voluntary Arbitrator and not the Labor Arbiter. a) Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or
detention
b) Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his
RULING: CA did not commit error. rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived of or
 It is settled that when the parties have validly agreed on a on acting in his behalf;
procedure for resolving grievances and to submit a dispute to c) Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as
voluntary arbitration then that procedure should be strictly preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property
observed and support during the pendency of the action; and
d) Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.
9) Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the
interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the SOJ

10) Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law (CARL)

11) Labor disputes or controversies arising from ER-EE relations [Art.


226, Labor Code, which grants original and exclusive jurisdiction over
conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to
certain offices of the DOLE];

12) Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed


directly in court

(28) METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT vs MACTAN ROCK


INDUSTRIES INC.

 MCWD entered into a Water Supply Contract with Respondent


MRII wherein it was agreed that the MRII would supply MCWD
with potable water, in accordance with the WHO standard or the
PH national standard, with a minimum guaranteed annual volume.
 MRII filed complaint against MCWD with CIAC reformation of
Clause 17 of the Contract, or the Price Escalation/De-Escalation
Clause
 MCWD contends that CIAC has no jurisdiction for contract was
NOT one for construction or infrastructure

RULING:
NOTE: Contract was not limited to a water supply contract. IF it was
merely a water supply contract not considered as construction contract
falling under CIAC’s jurisdiction.

 The jurisdiction of the CIAC as a quasi-judicial body is


confined to construction disputes,
- that is, those arising from, or connected to, contracts involving
“all on-site works on buildings or altering structures from
land clearance through completion including excavation,
erection and assembly and installation of components
and equipment.”
- The CIAC has jurisdiction over all such disputes whether the
dispute arises before or after the completion of the contract.

 CIAC has jurisdiction over the dispute: YES


- When the MR in the First Petition was denied and MCWD
never appealed the case, the decision of the became final
and executory.
- Had the parties been of the mutual understanding that the
Contract was not of construction, they could have instead
referred the matter to arbitration citing RA 876, or The
Arbitration Law

 CIAC had jurisdiction to order the reformation of the


Water Supply Contract: YES
- The text of Section 4 of E.O. No. 1008 is broad enough to
cover any dispute arising from, or connected with,
construction contracts, whether these involve mere
contractual money claims or execution of the works.
- Thus, unless specifically excluded, all incidents and
matters relating to construction contracts are deemed to
be within the jurisdiction of the CIAC.

 The Court held that the CIAC retained jurisdiction even if both
parties had withdrawn their consent to arbitrate
- MCWD can validly refuse to participate in the
arbitration proceeding