This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, praying that the Decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated December 19, 2003, holding that the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) had no jurisdiction over the dispute between herein parties, and the CA Resolution^[2] dated May 24, 2004, denying herein petitioner's motion for reconsideration, be reversed and set aside.

The undisputed facts, as accurately narrated in the CA Decision, are as follows.

On July 20, 1995, petitioner Ray Burton Development Corporation [herein respondent] (RBDC for brevity) and private respondent William Golangco Construction Corporation [herein petitioner] (WGCC) entered into a Contract for the construction of the Elizabeth Place (Office/Residential Condominium).

On March 18, 2002, private respondent WGCC filed a complaint with a request for arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as CIAC).  In its complaint, private respondent prayed that CIAC render judgment ordering petitioner to pay private respondent the amount of, to wit:

1. P24,703,132.44 for the unpaid balance on the contract price;
   
2. P10,602,670.25 for the unpaid balance on the labor cost adjustment;
   
3. P9,264,503.70 for the unpaid balance of additive works;
   
4. P2,865,615.10 for extended overhead expenses;
   
5. P1,395,364.01 for materials cost adjustment and trade contractors' utilities expenses;
   
6. P4,835,933.95 for interest charges on unpaid overdue billings on labor cost adjustment and change orders.
   

or for a total of Fifty Three Million Six Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand Two Hundred Nineteen and 45/xx (P53,667,219.45) and interest charges based on the prevailing bank rates on the foregoing amount from March 1, 2002 and until such time as the same shall be fully paid.

On April 12, 2002, petitioner RBDC filed a Motion to Dismiss the aforesaid complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.  It is petitioner's contention that the CIAC acquires jurisdiction over disputes arising from or connected with construction contracts only when the parties to the contract agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration.  In the contract between petitioner and private respondent, petitioner claimed that only disputes by reason of differences in interpretation of the contract documents shall be deemed subject to arbitration.

Private respondent filed a Comment and Opposition to the aforesaid Motion dated April 15, 2002.  Private respondent averred that the claims set forth in the complaint require contract interpretation and are thus cognizable by the CIAC pursuant to the arbitration clause in the construction contract between the parties.  Moreover, even assuming that the claims do not involve differing contract interpretation, they are still cognizable by the CIAC as the arbitration clause mandates their direct filing therewith.

On May 6, 2002, the CIAC rendered an Order the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:

The Commission has taken note of the foregoing arguments of the parties. After due deliberations, the Commission resolved to DENY Respondent's motion on the following grounds:

^[1] Clause 17.2 of Art. XVII of the Contract Agreement explicitly provides that "any dispute" arising under the construction contract shall be submitted to "the Construction Arbitration Authority created by the Government."  Even without this provision, the bare agreement to submit a construction dispute to arbitration vests in the Commission original and exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Sec. 4 of Executive Order No. 1008, whether or not a dispute involves a collection of sum of money or contract interpretation as long as the same arises from, or in connection with, contracts entered into by the parties involved.  The Supreme Court jurisprudence on Tesco vs. Vera case referred to by respondent is no longer controlling as the same was based on the old provision of Article III, Sec. 1 of the CIAC Rules which has long been amended.

^[2] The issue raised by Respondent in its Motion to Dismiss is similar to the issue set forth in CA-G.R. Sp. No. 67367, Continental Cement Corporation vs. CIAC and EEI Corporation, where the appellate court upheld the ruling of the CIAC thereon that since the parties agreed to submit to arbitration any dispute, the same does not exclude disputes relating to claims for payment in as much as the said dispute originates from execution of the works.  As such, the subject dispute falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the CIAC.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED for lack of merit.  Respondent is given anew an inextendible period of ten (10) days from receipt hereof within which to file its Answer and nominees for the Arbitral Tribunal.  If Respondent shall fail to comply within the prescribed period, the Commission shall proceed with arbitration in accordance with its Rules. x x x

Thereafter, petitioner filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings praying that the CIAC order a suspension of the proceedings in Case No. 13-2002 until the resolution of the negotiations between the parties, and consequently, that the period to file an Answer be held in abeyance.

Private respondent filed an Opposition to the aforesaid Motion and a Counter-Motion to Declare respondent to Have Refused to Arbitrate and to Proceed with Arbitration Ex Parte.

On May 24, 2002 the CIAC issued an Order, the pertinent portion of which reads:

In view of the foregoing, Respondent's (petitioner's) Motion to Suspend Proceedings is DENIED. Accordingly, respondent is hereby given a non-extendible period of five (5) days from receipt thereof within which to submit its Answer and nominees for the Arbitral Tribunal.  In default thereof, claimant's (private respondent's) Counter-Motion is deemed granted and arbitration shall proceed in accordance with the CIAC Rules Governing Construction Arbitration.

SO ORDERED. x x x

On June 3, 2002, petitioner RBDC filed [with the Court of Appeals (CA)] a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction.  Petitioner contended that CIAC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction when it issued the questioned order despite the clear showing that there is lack of jurisdiction on the issue submitted by private respondent for arbitration.^[3]

On December 19, 2003, the CA rendered the assailed Decision granting the petition for certiorari, ruling that the CIAC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case because the parties agreed that only disputes regarding differences in interpretation of the contract documents shall be submitted for arbitration, while the allegations in the complaint make out a case for collection of sum of money.  Petitioner moved for reconsideration of said ruling, but the same was denied in a Resolution dated May 24, 2004.

Hence, this petition where it is alleged that:

tags