DENR v. United Planners Consultants, Inc.

Facts:

There is a Consultancy Agreement. The parties are DENR, through the LMB, and United
Planners. They also agreed to have an Arbitration clause.

DENR did not pay its debt under the Agreement. Thus, UPCI sued DENR.

After filing the case, UPCI filed for a Motion for Referral to Arbitration because of the Arbitration
clause. DENR did not object. Thus it was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. During the arbitration
proceedings, the parties agreed to apply the CIAC Rules (Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission).

It rendered an Arbitral Award in favor of UPCI. DENR filed an MR of the Award but was denied.

The RTC issued a Confirmation Order, confirming the the Award. DENR filed a certiorari petition
but was denied.

Until the CA, the DENR lost. The DENR thus filed a certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Did the CA apply the Special ADR rules correctly?

Ruling:

Yes.

In the case at bar, by UPCI’s referral to arbitration, the case fell within the coverage of the
Special ADR Rules. However, with respect to the arbitration proceedings itself, the parties had
agreed to adopt the CIAC Rules before the Arbitral Tribunal pursuant to the Special ADR Rules.

The Arbitral Tribunal issued an Arbitral Award in favor of UPCI.

Under the CIAC Rules, CIAC Rules, MR or MNT is not allowed.

Under the CIAC Rules, the remedies of a party are:

1) Motion for Correction of the Arbitral Award, or

2) Appeal of the Award

1) Motion for Correction of the Arbitral Award. Noted that the filing of this Motion shall interrupt
the running of the period for appeal, if it is based on any of the following grounds, to wit:

a. an evident miscalculation of figures, a typographical or arithmetical error;

b. an evident mistake in the description of any party, person, date, amount, thing or property
referred to in the award;

c. where the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them, not affecting the
merits of the decision upon the matter submitted;

d. where the arbitrators have failed or omitted to resolve certain issue/s formulated by the
parties in the Terms of Reference (TOR) and submitted to them for resolution, and

e. where the award is imperfect in a matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy.

2) Or, an Appeal of the Award by filing a petition for review under Rule 43, Rules of Court.

The SC held that DENR did not avail any of the said 2 remedies. DENR however filed an MR.
This is prohibited as said above. Thus, this rendered the Arbitral Award final and executory.

The Arbitral Tribunal remanded it to the RTC for Confirmation of the Award. The Special ADR
Rules and the ADR Law require this Confirmation so that the Award will be enforceable.
Thereafter, the RTC issued a Confirmation Order.

Under the Special ADR Rules, the remedy during the confirmation proceedings is to file a
Petition to Vacate the Arbitral Award. And the remedy against the Confirmation Order is a
Motion for Reconsideration.

Under the Special ADR Rules, the remedy of Rule 65 certiorari can be filed only if there is:
1. GADALEJ, and
2. There is no appeal, or plain, adequate and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of
law.

Here, the DENR filed a Rule 65 certiorari at once to attack the Confirmation Order. It did
not first file a MR. MR is a plain, adequate and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of
law. With this, the CA denied the certiorari.

In view of the foregoing, the CA applied the Special ADR rules correctly.