DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR) v.
UNITED PLANNERS
CONSULTANTS , INC.,
G.R. No. 212081, February 23, 2015
FACTS:
• July 26, 1993 - Petitioner, through the Land Management Bureau (LMB), entered into an
Agreement for Consultancy Services (Consultancy Agreement) with respondent United Planners
Consultants, Inc. in connection with the LMB’s Land Resource Management Master Plan Project
(LRMMP). Under the Consultancy Agreement, petitioner committed to pay a total contract
price of P4,337,141.00, based on a predetermined percentage corresponding to the particular
stage of work accomplished.
• December 1994 - Respondent completed the work required, which petitioner formally
accepted on December 27, 1994. However, petitioner was able to pay only 47% of the total
contract price in the amount of P2,038,456.30.
• October 25, 1994 - The Commission on Audit (COA) released the Technical Services
Office Report (TSO) finding the contract price of the Agreement to be 84.14% excessive. This
notwithstanding, petitioner, in a letter dated December 10, 1998, acknowledged its liability to
respondent in the amount of P2,239,479.60 and assured payment at the soonest possible time.
• For failure to pay its obligation under the Consultancy Agreement despite repeated
demands, respondent instituted a Complaint against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City. Due to the existence of Arbitration clause, the respondent moved for the issue
to be tried through arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal rendered its Award dated May 7, 2010
(Arbitral Award) in favor of respondent
• Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Arbitral Tribunal claimed that it had
already lost jurisdiction over the case after it had submitted to the RTC its Report together with
a copy of the Arbitral Award
• March 30, 2011, the RTC merely noted petitioner’s aforesaid motions, finding that
copies of the Arbitral Award appear to have been sent to the parties by the Arbitral Tribunal,
including the OSG, contrary to petitioner’s claim. On the other hand, the RTC confirmed the
Arbitral Award pursuant to Rule 11.2 (A)36 of the Special ADR Rules and ordered petitioner to
pay respondent the costs of confirming the award, as prayed for, in the total amount of
P50,000.00. From this order, petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration.
• June 15, 2011 - Respondent moved for the issuance of a writ of execution, to which no
comment/opposition was filed by petitioner despite the RTC’s directive therefor. In an Order
dated September 12, 2011, the RTC granted respondent’s motion. Petitioner moved to quash
the writ of execution, positing that respondent was not entitled to its monetary claims. It also
claimed that the issuance of said writ was premature since the RTC should have first resolved
its May 19, 2010 Motion for Reconsideration and June 1, 2010 Manifestation and Motion, and
not merely noted them, thereby violating its right to due process.
• In an Order dated July 9, 2012, the RTC denied petitioner’s motion to quash.
• July 12, 2012 - Petitioner received the RTC’s Order dated July 9, 2012 denying its motion
to quash. Dissatisfied, it filed on September 10, 2012 a petition for certiorari before the CA,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 126458, averring in the main that the RTC acted with grave abuse of
discretion in confirming and ordering the execution of the Arbitral Award.
• March 26, 2014 - The CA dismissed the certiorari petition on two (2) grounds, namely:
(a) the petition essentially assailed the merits of the Arbitral Award which is prohibited under
Rule 19 of the Special ADR Rules and (b) the petition was filed out of time, having been filed
way beyond 15 days from notice of the RTC’s July 9, 2012 Order, in violation of Rule 19.2852 in
relation to Rule 19.853 of said Rules which provide that a special civil action for certiorari must
be filed before the CA within 15 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought
to be annulled or set aside (or until July 27, 2012). Aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant
petition.
ISSUE:
• Whether or not the CA erred in applying the provisions of the Special ADR Rules,
resulting in the dismissal of petitioner’s special civil action for certiorari.
HELD:
• The petition is DENIED, Republic Act No. (RA) 9285, otherwise known as the Alternative
Dispute Resolution Act of 2004,” institutionalized the use of an Alternative Dispute Resolution
System (ADR System) in the Philippines. The Act, however, was without prejudice to the
adoption by the Supreme Court of any ADR system as a means of achieving speedy and efficient
means of resolving cases pending before all courts in the Philippines.
• May 7, 2010, the Arbitral Tribunal rendered the Arbitral Award in favor of respondent.
Under Section 17.2, Rule 17 of the CIAC Rules, no motion for reconsideration or new trial may
be sought, but any of the parties may file a motion for correction of the final award, which shall
interrupt the running of the period for appeal, Moreover, the parties may appeal the final
award to the CA through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
