Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10 Philrock Vs CIAC Case Digest Ok
10 Philrock Vs CIAC Case Digest Ok
Facts:
On 14 September 1992, the Cid spouses filed a complaint for
damages against Philrock and its seven officers and engineers
with RTC Quezon. On 7 December 1993, the RTC dismissed
and referred the case to CIAC because the parties had filed an
agreement to arbitrate with CIAC. During the conference,
disagreements arose as to whether moral and exemplary
damages and tort should be included as an issue along with
breach of contract, and whether Philrocks seven officers and
engineers, who are not parties to the agreement to arbitrate,
should be included in the arbitration proceedings.
Issue:
Whether or not CIAC still has jurisdiction after it had dismissed
the case and referred it to RTC.
Ruling:
I. Jurisdiction
Parties Arguments
Petitioner avers that the CIAC lost jurisdiction over the
arbitration case after both parties had withdrawn their consent
to arbitrate. The June 13, 1995 RTC Order remanding the case
to the CIAC for arbitration was allegedly an invalid mode of
referring a case for arbitration.
Accordingly, this Tribunal finds that the mix was of the right proportions
at the time it left the plant. This, however, does not necessarily mean
that all of the concrete mix delivered had remained workable when it
reached the jobsite. It should be noted that there is no evidence to show
that all the transit mixers arrived at the site within the allowable time
that would ensure the workability of the concrete mix delivered.
There is no dispute, however, to the fact that there are defects in some
areas of the poured structures. In this regard, this Tribunal holds that the
only logical reason is that the unworkable concrete was the one that was
poured in the defective sections.[14]
9. Claimants were assured that the problem and her demands had been
the subject of several staff meetings and that Arteche was very much
aware of it, a memorandum having been submitted citing all the
demands of [c]laimants. This assurance was made on July 31, 1992
when Respondents Secillano, Martillano and Lomibao came to see
Claimant Nelia Cid and offered to refund P23,276.25, [t]he difference
between the billing by Philrocks Marketing Department in the amount of
P125,586.25 and the amount charged by Philrock's Batching Plant
Department in the amount of only P102,586.25, which [c]laimant
refused to accept by saying, Saka na lang.[18]
The same issue was discussed during the hearing before the
arbitration tribunal on December 19, 1995.[19] It was also
mentioned in that tribunals Decision dated September 24,
1996.[20]