THIRD DIVISION
POSADAS-MOYA AND
ASSOCIATES
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
141115
June 10, 2003
-versus-
GREENFIELD
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, JARDINE LAND, INC.chanrobles virtual law library
AND
CASTLETON
PROPERTY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Respondents.
D E C I S I
O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Dismissals based on pure
technicalities should be avoided when the parties have substantially
complied
with the Rules. When a petition presents prima facie allegations
of errors committed by a lower tribunal, the reviewing court should, as
much as practicable, endeavor to decide the case on its merits. The Case
Before us is a petition
for review[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the October 29, 1999
resolution[2]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 55051. The assailed
resolution reads:
"This Court
resolved to DISMISS the above-entitled petition for failure on the part
of the petitioner to attach thereto all pleadings (such as the
complaint)
and other material portions of the record as would support the
allegations
therein, a requirement under Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil
Procedure."[3] The Facts
On March 23, 1999, Petitioner
Posadas-Moya & Associates Construction Co., Inc. (hereinafter
"Posadas-Moya")
filed with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) a
Request
for Adjudication,[4]
through arbitration proceedings, of its formal Complaint against
respondent
corporations:[5]
Jardine Land, Inc. ("JLI"); Greenfield Development Corporation ("GDC");
and United Laboratories, Inc. ("ULI"). The case was docketed as
CIAC
Case No. 08-99. In their Answer with Counterclaim[6]
dated April 23, 1999, respondents interposed both negative and
affirmative
defenses. Petitioner then filed its Reply[7]
on May 19, 1999.chanrobles virtual law library
On June 29, 1999, all
the parties appeared for a preliminary conference to finalize the draft
Terms of Reference (TOR),[8]
a copy of which had earlier been furnished them. Like a pretrial
order, a TOR limits the issues to be tried to those formulated therein
and otherwise controls the course of arbitration proceedings.
After
lengthy discussions leading to the incorporation of suggestions for
modifications
of the TOR, the parties and their respective counsels, along with the
Arbitral
Tribunal,[9]
signed it on the same date.cralaw:red
In the same preliminary
conference, the parties were informed that in arbitration proceedings,
a witness’ testimony on direct examination should be in the form of an
affidavit. A list of the pieces of documentary evidence -- each
containing
the exhibit marking, the description and the purpose for submission --
should also be prepared and attached to the affidavit wherein they were
mentioned. The affidavit should be personally served on opposing
counsel at least three days before the hearing. Cross-examination
would then be undertaken by the opposing counsel on the basis thereof.cralaw:red
The parties then agreed
to a hearing on August 4, 1999. During the scheduled hearing,
Posadas-Moya
presented its president, Januario P. Posadas, as its lone
witness.
He was subjected to an extensive cross-examination by the counsel of
respondents.
The following day, August 5, 1999, they presented their witnesses: 1)
Bob
C. Zulueta, vice-president of JLI; 2) Zaldy Masarate, head of GDC’s
Construction
Management Department and Construction Management Services; 3) Glenn
Gaid,
resident engineer of GDC; 4) Josephine de la Rosa, engineering
assistant
of GDC’s Technical Services Division; and 5) Juan del Rosario, head of
GDC’s Technical Services Division. They executed a Joint
Affidavit,
whereupon they were cross-examined by petitioner’s counsel.cralaw:red
At the close of the
hearing, the parties were given until August 31, 1999 to submit their
respective
draft decisions. They did so on the said date, upon which the
case
was deemed submitted for resolution. On September 10, 1999, the
CIAC
rendered its 59-page Decision,[10]
the dispositive portion of which reads:
"AWARD
"WHEREFORE, judgment
is hereby rendered and award is made on the monetary claims made by the
parties as follows:
I. FOR THE CLAIMANT-CONTRACTOR
PMACCI:
P1,052,233.78 -- for
its work accomplishment for the period from 01 - 15 September 1998 to
be
paid separately, as follows:
P137,138.50
-- for GDC
610,298.28
-- for JLI
chan
robles virtual law library
304,797.00
-- for CPDC
chan
robles virtual law library
P191,373[.19]
-- for the total net additive costs to be paid separately, as follows:
chan
robles virtual law library
[P]47,302.69
-- for the net additive claim uncontested by JLI
143,615.66 - GDC
454.84 - CPDC
P1,311,900.17
-- for the value of construction materials left at project
site.
Said obligation shall be jointly and severally paid to the
Claimant
by the Respondents.cralaw:red
P5,400,735.25 --
as refund of retention moneys to be paid separately as follows:
JLI
-- P2,708,356.05
GDC
-- 1,395,780.56
CPDC
-- 1,296,599.12
Total
--
P5,400.735.25
-
P7,956,242.39 -- GRAND
TOTAL DUE TO THE CLAIMANT BROKEN DOWN AS FOLLOWS:
P1,676,534.72
-- from GDCchanrobles virtual law library
3,35,957.02[11]
-- from JLIchanrobles virtual law library
1,601,850.96
-- from CPDCchanrobles virtual law library
1,311,900.17
-- from all collectively
chan
robles virtual law library
P7,956,242.39
-- GRAND TOTAL
chan
robles virtual law library
II. FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
chan
robles virtual law library
GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
P8,800.00 -- for the value of 100 bags of Portland Cement borrowed by
the
Claimant
P55,200.00 -- for rental of construction equipment used by the Claimant
in the works
P2,466,546.57 -- for
the refund of the unrecouped downpayment
P259,780.13
-- for reimbursement of the amount paid for utilities
P74,455.58 - for liquidated damages on the SDUs
P2,864,782.28
- Total due to GDC
CASTLETON PROPERTIES
& DEVELOPMENT CORP.chanrobles virtual law library
P1,847,254.47
- for the refund of the unrecouped downpayment
274,156.34 - for liquidated damages on the SDUs
P2,121,410.81
- Total due to CPDCchanrobles virtual law library
JARDINE LAND, INC.cralaw:red
[P]3,432,163.86 -- for
the refund of the unrecouped downpaymentchanrobles virtual law library
675,044.89 - for liquidated damages on the SDUs
P4,107,208.75
- Total due to JLI
ALL RESPONDENTS COLLECTIVELY
P353,364.89 -- reimbursement
of unliquidated value of owner-assisted materials
P65,268.45 -- reimbursement
of amounts advanced for occupancy permit fee, inspection fee,
certificate
of electrical inspection, miscellaneous fee and city ordinance
contractors’
tax
P623,094.58 -
as liquidated damages on the amenities contract
P1,041,727.92 -- Total
due to all Respondents collectively
P10,135,129.76 -- GRAND
TOTAL DUE TO RESPONDENTS
"Claimant is hereby
further required to turn over to the Respondents the original of the
building
permits for the project and the project logbook.chanrobles virtual law library
"OFFSETTING the grand
total amounts due to the Claimant-Contractor and the Respondents,
respectively,
a balance of P2,178,887.37 remains in favor of the
Respondent-Owners.
Claimant-Contractor POSADAS-MOYA AND ASSOCIATES CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
(PMACCI) is accordingly directed to pay said balance of P2,178,887.37
to
the Respondents collectively. Interests on the foregoing amount
shall
be paid at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this
Decision.
After finality of this Decision, interest at the rate of 12% per annum
shall be paid thereon until full payment of the awarded amount shall
have
been made, ‘this interim period being deemed to be at that time already
a forbearance of credit.’"[12]
Petitioner received
a copy of the foregoing Decision on September 16, 1999. On
September
24, 1999, it filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for
Review[13]
before the CA, which received it on October 13, 1999. Petitioner
had annexed the following documents to its Petition:
1. Annex "A" -
Decision of the CIAC
2. Annex "B" -
Request for Adjudication (Narrative Facts & Figures - An Arbitral
Presentation)
3. Annex "C" -
Respondents’ Answer with Counterclaims
4. Annex "D" -
petitioner’s Reply to Respondents’ Answer with Counterclaims
5. Annex "E" -
Terms of Reference, which was signed by the parties, their counsels and
the Arbitral Tribunal
Respondents averred
that they had filed their own Petition for Partial Review on Certiorari
under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure on October 18,
1999.[14]
This Petition, docketed as CA-GR No. 55185, was raffled to and is
pending
before the Ninth Division of the CA.[15]
Ruling of the
Court
of Appeals
In dismissing the appeal
of Posadas-Moya, the CA ruled that the Petition had no attached
pleadings
-- such as the Complaint and other material portions of the record --
that
would support the allegations therein.[16]
The court a quo based its dismissal on the requirements of Section 2 of
Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Court.[17]chanrobles virtual law library
Hence, this Petition.[18]
The Issues
In its Memorandum,[19]
petitioner submits the following issues for our consideration:
"I
Whether or not the
Honorable
Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition dated October 11,
1999,
and docketed as CA-G.R. No. SP 55051, on the supposed ground that
petitioner
failed to attach a copy of the ‘complaint,’ inasmuch as petitioner
indeed
attached such copy as Annex ‘B’ to the CA petition.
"II
Whether or not the
Honorable
Court of Appeals erred in not exercising its jurisdiction to correct
the
grave error of law by the CIAC when the latter declared that, as of
September
15, 1998, petitioner was ‘in delay’ in the completion of the Project,
despite
the undisputed facts on record.
"III
Whether or not the
Honorable
Court of Appeals erred in not exercising its jurisdiction to strike
down
the CIAC’s holding that respondents’ termination of the construction
contract
is legal.
"IV
Whether or not the
Honorable
Court of Appeals erred in sustaining, by its inaction, the illegal
award
of liquidated damages by the CIAC, and the latter’s denial of
petitioner’s
claim for unrealized income."[20]
Simply stated, the issues
are as follows: (1) whether the CA erred in dismissing
Posadas-Moya’s
Petition for Review; and, (2) if so, whether this Court can immediately
take cognizance of the appeal without necessarily remanding the case to
the CA.
The Court’s Ruling
The Petition is partly
meritorious.cralaw:red
First Issue:
Propriety of the Dismissal of Petitioner’s Appeal
Petitioner faults the
CA for dismissing its Petition on the basis of the requirements of Rule
42 of the Rules of Court, when its appeal was based on Rule 43.
Furthermore,
the CA allegedly erred in ruling that the original Complaint had not
been
attached to the Petition. Petitioner explains that "[w]hat
probably
misled that Court into concluding otherwise was the caption used by
petitioner
in denominating that complaint. For, instead of ‘complaint,’ petitioner
captioned it as ‘Narrative Facts and Figures - An Arbitral
Presentation.’"[21]
According to petitioner,
nobody questioned the caption at the CIAC level. In fact, there was
absolutely
no uncertainty that, to all intents and purposes, it was an initiatory
pleading. Petitioner contends that respondents filed their Answer
with Counterclaim and the CIAC rendered its Decision based on the
pleading.cralaw:red
We agree with petitioner.
It should be clear that the Petition filed by Posadas-Moya was governed
by Rule 43, not Rule 42, of the Revised Rules of Court.
Petitioner
was appealing from a Decision of the CIAC. Rule 42 governs
appeals
from a decision of the regional trial court rendered in the exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction,[22]
whereas Rule 43 governs appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the CA.cralaw:red
Section 1 of Rule 43
provides:
"Section 1.
Scope. - This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or
final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments,
final
orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in
the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these
agencies
are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals,
Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land
Registration
Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau
of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National
Electrification
Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications
Commission,
Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government
Service
Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural
Inventions
Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board
of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and
voluntary
arbitrators authorized by law."[23]
(Emphasis supplied)chanrobles virtual law library
As to what should be
the
contents of the Petition for Review filed by Posadas-Moya is governed
by
Section 6 of Rule 43, which reads:
"Section.
6.
Contents of the petition. - The petition for review shall
(a)
state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the
court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a
concise
statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon
for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate
original
or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or
resolution
appealed from, together with certified true copies of such materials
portions
of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers; and (d)
contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the
last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state
the
specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period
fixed
herein."[24]
Respondents argue that
petitioner failed to meet this requirement. Specifically, the
latter
allegedly failed to attach ‘"all material portions of the record
referred
to’ in the petition for review and all other supporting papers."[25]
According to them, since petitioner was raising factual issues, it
should
have attached certified true copies of the following:
1. The Affidavit
of petitioner’s sole witness, Mr. Januario Posadaschanrobles virtual law library
2. The Joint Affidavit
of private respondents’ five witnesseschanrobles virtual law library
3. The Supplemental
Affidavit of Engineer Gaidchanrobles virtual law library
4. The Transcript
of Stenographic Notes (TSNs) of the hearings held on August 4 and 5,
1999
5. Petitioner’s
Draft Decision
6. Private respondents’
Draft Decision
Respondents’ argument
clearly shows that the CA was indeed mistaken in ruling that petitioner
had failed to attach the Complaint to its Petition. Obviously,
even
respondents accept that the "Narrative Facts and Figures -
An Arbitral Presentation" was truly the Complaint of petitioner in the
CIAC. If they honestly believed that there was no such
attachment,
then they should have included the Complaint in the above list.cralaw:red
Respondents harp on
the alleged failure of petitioner to submit the foregoing list of
documents,
which they deem essential to prevent an outright dismissal of the
Petition.
They cite, as basis for dismissing the Petition, Section 7 of Rule 43,
which reads:
"Sec.
7.
Effect of failure to comply with requirements. - The
failure
of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements
regarding
the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs,
proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents
which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the
dismissal thereof."[26]
We disagree. As we have
previously observed, the Petition for Review filed before the CA had a
certified true copy of the Decision of the CIAC,[27]
from which the appeal had been made. Properly appended to the
Petition
were the allegations of petitioner contained in its "Narrative Facts
and
Figures - An Arbitral Presentation" and the counter-allegations of
respondents
in their Answer with Counterclaims. Also annexed to the Petition
was the TOR, which was agreed upon by all the parties, and which
contained
all the admitted facts.
The TOR even confirms
that all of petitioner’s positions are stated in the Request for
Adjudication
(which is the same as the "Narrative Facts and Figures"), while those
of
respondents are in their Answer with Counterclaims. This fact clearly
shows
that the allegations of both petitioner and respondents are contained
in
those documents. It is therefore erroneous for respondents and
for
the appellate court to look for other documents on which to base the
disposition
of this case.cralaw:red
In dismissing the Petition,
the court a quo clearly put a premium on technicalities at the expense
of a just resolution of the case. The crucial issue we must now
consider
is whether the documents accompanying the Petition before the CA
sufficiently
supported the allegations therein.[28]chanrobles virtual law library
Without a doubt, the
CA had sufficient basis to actually and completely dispose of the
case.
The other documents that respondents insist should have been appended
to
the Petition will not necessarily determine whether the CA can properly
decide the case. Besides, these documents were already part of
the
records of this case and could have easily been referred to by the
appellate
court if necessary.cralaw:red
Time and time again,
this Court has reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are
mere tools intended to facilitate rather than to frustrate the
attainment
of justice. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be
eschewed if it would subvert their primary objective of enhancing fair
trials and expediting justice. Technicalities should never be used to
defeat
the substantive rights of the other party. Parties or litigants
must
be accorded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just
determination
of their causes, free from the constraints of technicalities.[29]
In denying due course
to the Petition, the appellate court gave premium to form and failed to
consider the important rights of the parties. At the very least,
petitioner substantially complied with the procedural requirements of
Section
6 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.cralaw:red
We must stress that
cases should be determined on the merits, after all parties have been
given
full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses, rather than on
technicalities or procedural imperfections.[30]
In that way, the ends of justice would be served better. Rules of
procedure
are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases
and other matters pending in court.[31]
A strict and rigid application of rules, resulting in technicalities
that
tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be
avoided.[32]
In fact, Section 6 of Rule 1 states that the Rules shall be liberally
construed
in order to promote their objective of ensuring the just, speedy and
inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding.[33]chanrobles virtual law library
Second Issue:
Remand to the CA
Petitioner then asks
this Court to decide its appeal on the merits without need of remanding
the case to the CA.cralaw:red
We cannot grant the
prayer. The issues raised by petitioner on the merits of its
appeal
are questions that should be addressed to the CA. It is the appellate
court
that has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to Rule 43. Section 3
thereof
provides:
"Section.
3.
Where to appeal. An appeal under this Rule [Rule 43] may be taken to
the
Court of Appeals within the period and in the manner herein provided,
whether
the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of
fact
and law."[34]
In the present case,
the
determination of the rights of petitioner and respondents involves
questions
of both fact and law.
A question of law exists
when there is doubt or controversy on what the law is on a certain
state
of facts. There is a question of fact when the doubt or
difference
arises from the truth or the falsity of the allegations of facts.[35]chanrobles virtual law library
Explained the Court:
"A question of law exists
when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law
or
jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not
call
for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented,
the
truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists
when
the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or
when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering
mainly
the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of
specific
surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and
to
the whole, and the probability of the situation."[36]
Clearly, an examination
of the evidence presented is required in the determination of the
scope,
the extent and the effects of the construction projects, contracts and
agreements of petitioner and respondents. Such examination will also
determine
the liability of the parties between and among them. Hence, we
cannot
grant the prayer of petitioner that the substantive issues of the case
be decided by this Court, since the CA has not yet passed upon the
factual
issues raised by the parties.[37]
Furthermore, respondents’
appeal is also pending in the CA. It is thus best that, as much
as
possible, petitioner’s cause should also be decided in the same
proceedings
where respondents’ appeal is lodged.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the Petition
is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed CA Resolution, dated October 29, 1999
dismissing
petitioner’s appeal is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is
REMANDED
to the CA for decision on the merits. No pronouncement as to costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 10-42.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]Annex
"A" of the Petition; rollo, p. 45. Tenth Division. Penned
by
Justice Ramon Mabutas Jr. (Division chairman) and concurred in by
Justices
Hilarion L. Aquino and Wenceslao I. Agnir Jr. (members).
[3]
Rollo, p. 45.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Annex "B" of the Petition; rollo, pp. 48-69. This is entitled
"Lexington
Housing Project/Lexington Amenities Project: Narrative Facts &
Figures
- An Arbitral Presentation."
[5]
The corporate interests of ULI were later assigned to Castleton
Properties
& Development Corp. ("CPDC").
[6]
Annex "C" of the Petition; rollo, pp. 70-116.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Annex "D" of the Petition; id., pp. 117-135.
[8]
Annex "E" of the Petition; id., pp. 136-144.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Composed of Alfredo F. Tadiar (chairman), Nicasio A. de Venecia and
Ernesto
S. de Castro (members).
[10]
Annex "F" of the Petition; rollo, pp. 145-204.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
The Court notes that the addends do not yield a grand total of
P7,956,242.39,
because the figure from JLI is patently erroneous.
[12]
CIAC Decision, pp. 55-58; id., pp. 199-202; citations omitted.
[13]
CA rollo, pp. 2-5.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Respondents’ Memorandum, p. 5; rollo, p. 333.
[15]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
CA Resolution, rollo, p. 45.
[17]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
The case was deemed submitted for resolution on August 3, 2001, upon
this
Court’s receipt of petitioner’s Reply Memorandum. The Reply
Memorandum
was allowed by the Court in its June 18, 2001 Resolution. Earlier, on
April
2, 2001, the Court received petitioner’s Memorandum which was signed by
Atty. Ponciano H. Gupit. Private respondents’ Memorandum, on the
other hand, was received on April 5, 2001. It was signed by
Attys.
Gilbert Raymund T. Reyes and Norielle C. Oquendo of Poblador Bautista
&
Reyes.
[19]
Rollo, pp. 301-328.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 13-14; rollo, pp. 313-314.
[21]
Id., pp. 15 & 315.
[22]
§1 of Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Court.
[23]
§1 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Court.
[24]
§6 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Court.
[25]
Respondents’ Memorandum, p. 18; rollo, p. 346.
[26]
§7 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Court.chanrobles virtual law library
[27]
CA rollo, pp. 32-91.chanrobles virtual law library
[28]
Piglas-Kamao v. NLRC, 357 SCRA 640, May 9, 2001; Atillo v. Bombay, 351
SCRA 361, February 7, 2001.
[29]
DBP v. CA, 411 Phil. 121, June 6, 2001.chanrobles virtual law library
[30]
Jaro v. CA, GR No. 127536, February 19, 2002; Paras v. Baldado, 354
SCRA
141, March 8, 2001; Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz, 336 SCRA 113, July 18,
2000;
Republic v. CA, 354 Phil. 252, July 9, 1998.
[31]
Jaro v. CA, supra; Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz, supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[32]
Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz, supra; Malonzo v. Zamora, 311 SCRA 224, July
27,
1999; Fortich v. Corona, 289 SCRA 624, April 24, 1998.
[33]
§6 of Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Court.chanrobles virtual law library
[34]
§3 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Court.chanrobles virtual law library
[35]
Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, 1997, 6th revised edition, Vol. I,
p.
541.
[36]
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 102508, January 30, 2002, per Davide,
CJ.
[37]
Abraham v. NLRC, 353 SCRA 739, March 6, 2001; Veluz v. CA, 345 SCRA
756,
November 23, 2000. |