View full case

NIA v. CA

FACTS:

The National Irrigation Administration (NIA) filed a special civil action for certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. In a competitive bidding held by NIA in 1978, Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation (HYDRO) was awarded a construction contract. HYDRO substantially completed the works in 1982 and alleged that it still had an account receivable from NIA representing the dollar rate differential of the price escalation for the contract. After unsuccessful negotiations with NIA, HYDRO filed a Request for Adjudication of its claim with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). NIA questioned the jurisdiction of CIAC, but both parties nominated arbitrators. The preliminary conference was held, and NIA requested an opportunity to examine the originals of the documents presented by HYDRO. The arbitration panel scheduled the dates of hearings and submission of memoranda. NIA filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing lack of jurisdiction, and CIAC deferred its determination. CIAC denied NIA's motion for reconsideration and ruled that it had jurisdiction over HYDRO's claim. NIA thereafter filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was later dismissed. NIA filed a subsequent petition with the Supreme Court to annul the Court of Appeals' resolutions.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari filed by NIA.

  2. Whether NIA should have filed a petition for review instead of a petition for certiorari.

  3. Whether NIA had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy of appeal available to it.

  4. Whether the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) has jurisdiction over the dispute between HYDRO and NIA.

  5. Whether the request for arbitration filed by HYDRO alone is sufficient to confer jurisdiction to CIAC.

  6. Whether the defenses of laches and prescription can be resolved in a motion to dismiss.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari filed by NIA. The original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over special civil actions for certiorari is provided for under Section 9(1) of B.P. 129.

  2. NIA should have filed a petition for review instead of a petition for certiorari. The appeal from a final disposition of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45 and not a special civil action under Rule 65.

  3. NIA had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy of appeal available to it. Appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy in this case.

  4. The CIAC has jurisdiction over the dispute, as long as it arose after the constitution of the CIAC. The jurisdiction of CIAC is over the dispute, not the contract, and the instant dispute arose when CIAC was already constituted, therefore, exercising current jurisdiction.

  5. The request for arbitration filed by HYDRO alone is sufficient to confer jurisdiction to CIAC. The contracts between HYDRO and NIA contained an arbitration clause wherein they agreed to submit any dispute between them to arbitration. Thus, the claim of HYDRO, arising from the contract, is arbitrable.

  6. The issues of laches and prescription are evidentiary in nature and should not be resolved in a motion to dismiss. These issues must be resolved at the trial on the merits where both parties can present evidence. However, under the new rules, deferment of the resolution of these issues is no longer allowed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over certiorari petitions is concurrent with the Supreme Court and the Regional Trial Court.

  • Special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be substituted for an ordinary appeal if appeal is an available remedy.

  • The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.

  • Jurisdiction of a court is determined by the law in force at the time of the commencement of the action.

  • The Construction Industry Arbitration Law vests the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) with original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from construction contracts.

  • The CIAC's jurisdiction covers disputes arising before or after the completion of the contract, regardless of the date of the contract's execution.

  • The jurisdiction of CIAC is over the dispute, not the contract.

  • The request for arbitration filed by one party is sufficient to confer jurisdiction to CIAC, as long as the contract contains an arbitration clause.

  • The issues of laches and prescription cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss but should be determined during the trial on the merits.