PDRCI successfully trained 49 new arbitrators during its four-day training seminar held on July 13 to 16, 2015. The training, held at PDRCI’s office at the Trade & Commerce Plaza at Fort onifacio in Taguig City, covered (a) introduction to arbitration by Atty. Arthur P. Autea, (b) pre-arbitration issues by Atty. Salvador S. Panga, Jr., (c) commencing the arbitration by Atty. Eduardo R. Ceniza,(d) pre-hearing considerations by Secretary General Atty. Roberto N. Dio, (e) conducting arbitration hearings by Atty. Victor P. Lazatin, and (f) recognition, enforcement, challenge and vacation of awards by Dean Custodio O. Parlade.
The participants watched a training video and took part in a mock arbitration facilitated by Attys. Donemark Calimon and Ricardo Ongkiko. They also took an accreditation examination on the last day of the training.
Based on a survey of the participants, the training rated good to excellent overall. According to the participants, the speakers were knowledgeable, the content was organized and easy to follow, the materials distributed were pertinent and useful, and there was adequate time provided for questions and discussions. The training met the participants’ expectations, who said that they would be able to apply the knowledge learned.
However, the time allotted to the daily take-home assignments were not adequate given the workloads of the participants. There were also constructive suggestions offered to improve the training and the style of each speaker.
PDRCI will hold its 10th arbitration training seminar in November 2015. For next year, it plans to roll out three training seminars. Beginning 2017, PDRCI aims to hold quarterly training seminars, including two in Cebu and Davao.
Supreme Court: Special ADR Rules applies to execution of confirmed Award
The Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution (“Special ADR Rules”) applies not only to the confirmation of an arbitral award but by implication necessarily extends to the execution of the confirmed award. This was the ruling of the Supreme Court in the recent case of Department of Environmental and Natural Resources v. United Planners Consultants, Inc. (UCPI), G.R. No. 212081, February 23, 2015
The dispute
On July 26, 1993, the Land Management Bureau (LMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) of the Philippine government entered into a Consultancy Agreement with UCPI for the Land Resource Management Master Plan Project. Under their Agreement, DENR undertook to pay UPCI’s fees based on progress or stage billing. UCPI completed the work, which and DENR accepted. However, LMB paid UCPI only 47% of the contract price.
Due to DENR’s failure to pay the balance of its fee despite demands, UCPI filed a collection case with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 222, Quezon City (RTC). The case was subsequently referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause of the Agreement.
During the preliminary conference before the Arbitral Tribunal (“Tribunal”), both parties agreed to adopt the Revised Rules Governing Construction Arbitration of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC Rules) to govern their arbitration proceedings. They also agreed to submit their respective draft decisions on or before April 21, 2010 in lieu of oral hearing.
The DENR moved for extension of the deadline and requested that it be given until May 11, 2010 to submit its draft decision. The Tribunal denied the DENR’s motion for extension but gave it another chance to submit its draft decision before May 7, 2010, to which DENR complied.
On May 7, 2010, the Tribunal rendered an Award in favor of UCPI. It directed DENR to pay UCPI the amount of (a) its unpaid progress billings, with 12% interest per annum from the date of finality of the Award upon confirmation by the RTC, until fully paid: (b) accrued interest; (c) exemplary damages; (d) attorney’s fees; and (e) its proportionate share of the arbitration costs.
DENR moved for reconsideration of the Award but the Tribunal did not act on it and instead submitted to the RTC its report together with a copy of the Award.
DENR then filed a motion for reconsideration with the RTC, asserting that it was denied the opportunity to be heard when the Tribunal failed to consider its draft decision and merely noted its motion for reconsideration.
Meanwhile, UCPI moved the RTC to confirm the Award pursuant to the Special ADR Rules. The RTC confirmed the Award and ordered DENR to pay UCPI the costs of confirming the award, which the DENR did not challenge.
On June 15, 2011, UCPI moved the RTC to issue a writ of execution, which the court granted. Instead of complying with the writ, however, DENR moved to quash it, claiming that its issuance was premature since the RTC should have first resolved DENR’s motion for reconsideration.
The RTC denied DENR’s motion to quash, ruling that its motion for reconsideration was a prohibited pleading under Rule 17, Section 17.2 of the CIAC Rules. The court reasoned that DENR should have filed a motion for correction of final award and not a motion for reconsideration of the Award itself. As a result, the court ruled that the Award became final and executory.