EN BANC

G.R. No. 230112 - GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER OF LAGUNA, INC.,

Petitioner, v. ROSS SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 230119 - ROSS SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Petitioner, v. GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER OF LAGUNA, INC.,
Respondent.

Promulgated:

SEPARATE OPINION

LEONEN,J.:

I concur with Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa' s

ponencia. These consolidated cases are an opportune time for this Court,
sitting en bane, to "untangl[e] the relevant laws and case pronouncements on
the extent of judicial review of [Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission (CIAC)] arbitral awards[,] [and come to] a decisive
harmonization of the standing laws on CIAC review[.]" 1

With this opportunity, I write separately to amplify points previously

articulated in CE Construction Corporation v. Araneta Center, lnc. 2 and
other decisions in which I had served as ponente. These had been referenced
by the present ponencia as informing its conclusions.

An immense degree of deference is due to the findings of arbitral

tribunals of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). The
law that created the CIAC, Executive Order No. 1008, otherwise known as
the Construction Industry Arbitration Law, delineates appellate jurisdiction
from rulings of CIAC arbitral tribunals. It stipulates that appeals from such
rulings may only be entertained on pure questions of law and only before
this Court.

Thus, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure-a provision of

procedural, and not of substantive law, which is ill-equipped to vest
jurisdiction-is mistaken in allowing appeals to be taken to the Court of J
Appeals.
- - -····- -·- · -
Ponenc1a, p. 8.
81 6 Phil. 221 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Divis ion].
Separate Opinion 2 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

Still, CIAC arbitral tribunals' factual findings are not entirely beyond
the reach of judicial review. The capacity to pass upon any "grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government" 3 is a constitutionally-
enshrined, inalienable dimension of judicial power. Thus, a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 65---over which the Court of Appeals has
jurisdiction-can touch upon factual findings in CIAC arbitral tribunal
rulings.

Nevertheless, entertammg Rule 65 petitions must entail an

extraordinarily narrow conception of grave abuse of discretion committed by
CIAC arbitral tribunals. Entertaining such petitions must be consistent with
our general framework on vacating arbitral awards, as seminally expressed
in Section 24 of Republic Act No. 876, otherwise known as the Arbitration
Law. 4

Thus, in the context of a Rule 65 petition, the Court of Appeals can

review the factual findings of CIAC arbitral tribunals only "in instances
when the integrity of the arbitral tribunal itself has been put injeopardy." 5

In addition, because of the basic primacy of the Constitution and the

imperative of harmonious application of laws, the Court of Appeals may
also review factual findings when there is grave abuse of discretion made by
way of violation of the Constitution or our laws. Review of factual findings
on any ground which goes into considerations other than the very integrity
of a CIAC arbitral tribunal (as contemplated in Section 24 of Republic Act
No. 876) or those tribunals' outright violation of the Constitution or laws is
an excessive, invalid review via certiorari.

CONST., art VIII, sec. 1, par. 2.

4
Republic Act No. 876 (1953), sec. 24 states:
Section 24. Grounds for vacating award. - In any one of the followi.-ig cases, the court must make an
order vacating the award upon the petition of any party to the controversy when such party proves
afr!TIIlatively that in the arbitration proceedings:
(a) Tue award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; or
(b) That there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators or any of them; or
(c) That the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing upon sufficient
cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; that one or more
of the arbitrators was disqualified to act as such under section nine hereof, and wilfully refrained from
disclosing such disqualifications or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have
been materially prejudiced; or
( d) That the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them, that a mutual, final
and definite award upon the subject matter submitted to them was not made.
Where an award is vacated, the court, in its discretion, may direct a new hearing either before the
same arbitrators or before a new arbitrator or arbitrators to be chosen in the manner provided in the
submission or contract for the selection of the original arbitrator or arbitrators, and any provision
limiting the time in which the arbitrators may make a decision shall be deemed applicable to the new
arbitration and to commence from the date of the court's order.
Where the court vacates an award, costs, not exceeding fifty pesos and disbursements may be
awarded to the prevailing party and the payment thereof may be enforced in like marmer as the
payment of costs upon the motion in an action.
5 CE Construction Corp. v. Araneta Center, Inc., 816 Phil. 221, 229 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division].
Separate Opinion 3 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

The CIAC serves the interest not only of speedy dispute resolution,
but also of authoritative dispute resolution. 6 It was created with a particular
view of enabling "early and expeditious settlement of disputes[,]" 7 aware of
the exceptional role of construction to "the furtherance of national
development goals." 8 CE Construction detailed the legal framework within
which the CIAC operates:

The Construction Industry Arbitration Commission was a creation

of Executive Order No. 1008, otherwise known as the Construction
Industry Arbitration Law. At inception, it was under the administrative
supervision of the Philippine Domestic Construction Board which, in turn,
was an implementing agency of the Construction Industry Authority of the
Philippines (CIAP). The ClAP is presently attached to the Department of
Trade and Industry.

The CIAC was created with the specific purpose of an "early and
expeditious settlement of disputes" cognizant of the exceptional role of
constrnction to "the furtherance of national development goals."

Section 4 of the Construction Industry Arbitration Law spells out

the jurisdiction of the CIAC:

Section 4. Jurisdiction. - The CLAC shall have original

and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from, or
connected with, contracts entered into by parties involved
in construction in the Philippines, whether the dispute
arises before or after the completion of the contract, or after
the abandonment or breach thereof. These disputes may
involve government or private contracts. For the Board to
acquire jurisdiction, the parties to a dispute must agree to
submit the same to voluntary arbitration.

The jurisdiction of the CIAC may include but is not

limited to violation of specifications for materials and
worlam1.'lship; violation of the terms of agreement;
interpretation and/or application of contractual time and
delays; maintenance and defects; payment, default of
employer or contractor and changes in contract cost.

Excluded from the coverage of this law are disputes

arising from employer-employee relationships which shall
contL'lue to be covered by the Labor Code of the
Pi,ilippines.

Though created by the act of a Chief Executive who then exercised

legislative powers concurrently with the Batasang Parnbansa, the creation,
continuing existence, and competence of the CIAC have since been
f
6
Id. at 253.
' Executive Order No. 1008 (I 995), sec. 2.
Executive Order No. 1008 (1995), Third Where2s Clause.
Separate Opinion 4 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

validated by acts of Congress.

Republic Act No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform

Act, enacted o_n January 10, 2003, explicitly recognized and confirmed the
competence of the CIAC:

Section 59. Arbitration. - Any and all disputes ansmg

from the implementation of a contract covered by this Act
shall be submitted to arbitration in the Philippines
according to the provisions of Republic Act No. 876,
otherwise known as the "Arbitration Law": Provided,
however, That, disputes that are wit.inn the competence of
the Construction Industry Arbitration Comnlission to
resolve shall be referred thereto. The process of arbitration
shall be incorporated as a provision in the contract that will
be executed pursuant to the provisions of this Act:
Provided, That by mutual agreement, the parties may agree
in writing to resort to alternative modes of dispute
resolution.

Arbitration of construction disputes through the Cl>\C was

formally incorporated into the general statutory framework on alternative
dispute resoh..'i:ion through Republic Act No. 9285, the .Alternative Dispute
Resoiution Act of 2004 (ADRLaw). Chapter 6, Section 34 of ADR Law
made specific reference to the Construction industry Arbitration Law,
while SectioTI"35 confirmed the CIAC's jurisdiction:

CHAPTER6
A.~ITRATION OF CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES

Section 34. Arbitration of Construction Disputes:

Governing Law. - The arbitration of construction disputes
shall be governed by Executive Order No. 1008, otherwise
k...1J.ovvn as the Construction Industry Arbitration Law.

.Se,;;tion 3'5 .' Coverage of th~ Law. - .Construction ..

. disp11ks v✓hich fall ,vithin· the origiricl ar.d ·exciuslve
jurisdiction. of the Construction fadustry Arbitration
Commission (the "Commission") shall include those
between or .a.."TI.ong pa.'iies to, or who are otherwise
.
bound
.

by, an arbitration agreement, directly or by reference

whether such parties are project owner, contractor,
subcontractor, fabricator, project manager, design
professionai, consultant, quarSity surveym, bondsman or
issuer of an insUYance policy in a construction project.

Tb.e Commission shaH continue to exer_cise original

and exclusiv·e. jurisdiction ~>yer cO~stn.1ctiOn' 'disputes
although the arbitratiqi. js "''-con11½eftfal"-, ·pursuant' tc
...., -..:-1- -•!J. .t.-1 v·\fth'sAct- .. ~e d'.;
"'e~_,_1'r·,"'l"\
""l, . . 9 '\.....,,h.ath).u~
,,_ - 1...rr-·,1,- .,..·.~,.. or.:n.*

I
1 ~-

The CIAC is a statutory creation: It was created by an executive order

promulgated by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos (President Marcos) in

9 CE Constn..£ction C(lfp. v. Araneta Center_. Inc., 8,16 ?hit 221~·/450-253 (2017) [Per J. Leonen. Second
Divis10n].
Separate Opinion 5 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

the exercise of legislative powers which were· then lodged in him. The
statute that created it spelled out not only the CIAC's jurisdiction in its
Section 4, but also the finality of CIAC decisions and mode of appeal in its
Section 19. 10

CE Construction detailed the intricacies of the CIAC as a statutory

creation, even though President Marcos did not use the usual modality (i.e.,
presidential decree) of his legislative enactments:

Though nominally an "executive order," the Construction Industry

Arbitration Law is a statute.

Jurisprudence has clarified that, in exercising legislative powers,

then President Marcos did not only use the modality of presidential
decrees, but also of executive orders and letters of instruction. Though,
this is not to say that all executive orders and letters of instruction issued
by him are statutes.

In Parong, et al. v. Enrile:

To form part of the law of the land, the decree,

order or [letter of instruction] must be issued by the
President in the exercise of his extraordinary power of
legislation as contemplated in Section 6 of the 1976
amendments to the Constitution, whenever in his judgment,
there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence
thereof, or whenever the interim Batasan[g] Pambansa or
the regular National Assembly fails or is unable to act
adequately on any matter for any reason that in his
judgment requires immediate action.

Associate Justice Irene Cortes noted that certain executive orders and
letters of instruction have indeed been on par with President Marcos' more
commonly used mode oflegislation (i.e., presidential decrees):

Another problem arises from lack of precision in the

appropriate use of one form of issuance as against another.
A presidential decree is equivalent to a statute enacted by
the legislature, and is thus superior to implementing rules
issued as executive orders or letter of instructions. But, it is
not unheard of for an executive order to amend or repeal a
presidential decree or a letter of instructions to amend an
executive order, or lay down a rule of law.

Associate Justice Cortes specifically cited as an example Exec.

Order No. 543 (1979), which aboiished the Philippine Center for
Advanced Studies, a creation of Pres. Decree No. 342 (1973). In
disproving that Exec. Order No. 543 was issued merely as an
implementing rule, she explained that its object - a state university - could
not have fallen under the scope of the President's reorganization powers, I
w Executive Order No. 1008 (1995), sec. 19 states:
SECTION 19. Finalit'J of Awards. -The arbitral award shall be binding upon the parties. It shall be
final and inappealable except on questions of law which shall be appealable to the Supreme Court.
Separate Opinion 6 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

for which an executive order issued merely as an implementing rule was

sufficient.

The Construction Industry Arbitration Law's own nomenclature

reveals the intent that it be a statute. Its whereas clauses and declaration
of policy reveal the urgency that impelled immediate action for the
President to exercise his concurrent legislative powers.

Any doubt on the statutory efficacy of the Construction Industry

Arbitration Law is addressed by Congress' own, voluntary and repeated
reference to and affirmation of it as such a law. (See Rep. Act No. 9184
and Rep. Act No. 9285). Rep. Act No. 9285 did not only validate the
Construction Industry Arbitration Law, it also incorporated it into the
general statutory framework of alternative dispute resolution.

Jurisprudence, too, has repeatedly and consistently referred to it as

such a "law." 11

CE Construction further discussed:

The creation of a special adjudicatory body for construction disputes

presupposes distinctive and nuanced competence on matters that are
conceded to be outside the innate expertise of regular courts and
adjudicatory bodies concerned with other specialized fields. 12

It drew attention to how the CIAC is a "quasi-judicial, administrative

agency equipped with technical proficiency that enables it to efficiently and
promptly resolve conflicts." 13 CE Construction explained:

The CIAC does not only serve the interest of speedy dispute
resolution, it also facilitates authoritative dispute resolution. Its authority
proceeds not only from juridical legitimacy but equally from technical
expertise. The creation of a special adjudicatory body for construction
disputes presupposes distinctive and nuanced competence on matters that
are conceded to be outside the innate expertise of regular courts and
adjudicatory bodies concerned with other specialized fields. The CIAC
has the state's confidence concerning the entire technical expanse of
construction, defined in jurisprudence as "referring to all on-site works on
buildings or altering structures, from land clearance through completion
including excavation, erection and assembly and installation of
components and equipment."

Jurisprudence has characterized the CIAC as a quasi-judicial,

administrative agency equipped with technical proficiency that enables it
to efficiently and promptly resolve conflicts:

I
[The CIAC] is a quasi-judicial agency. A quasi-judicial
agency or body has been defined as an organ of
government other than a court and other than a. legislature,
which affects the rights of private parties t'rrough either

ll Id. at 250-251. See fu. 105.

12 Id. at 253.
13 Id.
Separate Opinion 7 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

adjudication or rule-making. The very definition of an

administrative agency includes its being vested with quasi-
judicial powers. The ever increasing variety of powers and
functions given to administrative agencies recognizes the
need for the active intervention of administrative agencies
in matters calling for technical knowledge and speed in
countless controversies which cannot possibly be handled
by regular courts. The CIAC's primary function is that of a
quasi-judicial agency, which is to adjudicate claims and/or
determine rights in accordance with procedures set forth in
E.O. No. 1008.

The most recent jurisprudence maintains that the CIAC is a quasi-

judicial body. This Court's November 23, 2016 Decision in Fruehauf
Electronics v. Technology Electronics Assembly and Management Pacific
distinguished construction arbitration, as well as voluntary arbitration
pursuant to Article 219(14) of the Labor Code, from commercial
arbitration. It ruled that commercial arbitral tribunals are not quasi-
judicial agencies, as they are purely ad hoc bodies operating through
contractual consent and as they intend to serve private, proprietary
interests. In contrast, voluntary arbitration under the Labor Code and
construction arbitration operate through the statutorily vested jurisdiction
of government instrumentalities that exist independently of the will of
contracting parties and to which these parties submit. They proceed from
the public interest imbuing their respective spheres:

Voluntary Arbitrators resolve labor disputes and

grievances arising from the interpretation of Collective
Bargaining Agreements. These disputes were specifically
excluded from the coverage of both the Arbitration Law
and the ADR Law.

Unlike purely commercial relationships, the

relationship between capital a...'1d labor are heavily
impressed with public interest. Because of this, Voluntary
Arbitrators authorized to resolve labor disputes have been
clothed with quasi-judicial authority.

On the other hand, commercial relationships

covered by our commercial arbitration laws are purely
private and contractual in nature. Unlike labor
relationships, they do not possess the same compelling state
interest that would justify state interference into the
autonomy of contracts. Hence, commercial arbitration is a
purely private system of adjudication facilitated by private
citizens instead of government instrumentalities wielding
quasi-judicial powers.

Moreover, judicial or quasi-judicial jurisdiction

cannot be conferred upon a tribunal by the parties alone.
The Labor Code itself confers subject-matter jurisdiction to
Voluntary Arbitrators.

Notably, the other arbitration body listed in Rule 43

I
the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
(CIAC) - is also a government agency attached to the
Department of Trade and Industry. Its jurisdiction is
Separate Opinion 8 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

likewise conferred by statute. By contrast. the subject-

matter jurisdiction of commercial arbitrators is stipulated
by the parties. 14 (Emphasis in the original, citations
omitted)

Attesting to the primacy of technical expertise in enabling the CIAC's

competence, CE Construction noted that technical proficiency is the
foremost consideration in being an arbitrator in the CIAC:

Consistent with the primacy of technical mastery, Section 14 of the

Construction Industry Arbitration Law on the qualification of arbitrators
provides:

Section 14. Arbitrators. -A sole arbitrator or three

arbitrators may settle a dispute.

Arbitrators shall be men of distinction in whom the

business sector and the government can have confidence.
They shall not be permanently employed with the CIAC.
Instead, they shall render services only when called to
arbitrate. For each dispute they settle, they shall be given
fees.

Section 8.1 of the Revised Rules of Procedure Governing

Construction Arbitration establishes that the foremost qualification of
arbitrators shall be technical proficiency. It explicitly enables not only
lawyers but also "engineers, architects, construction managers,
engineering consultants, and businessmen familiar with the construction
industry" to serve as arbitrators:

Section 8.1 General Qualification of Arbitrators. - The

Arbitrators shall be men of distinction in whom the
business sector and the government can have confidence.
They shall be technically qualified to resolve any
construction dispute expeditiously and equitably. The
Arbitrators shall come from different professions. They
may include engineers, architects, construction managers,
engineering consultants, and businessmen familiar with the
construction industry and lawyers who are experienced in
construction disputes. (Emphasis supplied)

Of the 87 CIAC-accredited arbitrators as of January 2017, only 33

are lawyers. The majority are experts from construction-related
professions or engaged in related fields.

Apart from arbitrators, technical experts aid the CIAC in dispute

resolution. Section 15 of the Construction Industry Arbitration Law
provides:

Section 15. Appointment of Experts. - The services of

technical or legal experts may be utilized in the settlement
I
of disputes if requested by any of the parties or by the

14 Id. at 253-256.
Separate Opinion 9 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

Arbitral Tribunal. If the request for an expert is done by

either or by both of the parties, it is necessary that the
appointment of the expert be confirmed by the Arbitral
Tribunal.

Whenever the parties request for the services of an

expert, they shall equally shoulder the expert's fees and
expenses, half of which shall be deposited with the
Secretariat before the expert renders service. When only
one party makes the request, it shall deposit the whole
amount required. 15 (Citations omitted)

II

In view of the CIAC's unique technical expertise, primacy and

immense deference is accorded to CIAC arbitral tribunal decisions. This
means that there can only be "a very narrow room for assailing [their]
rulings." 16 Accordingly, Section 19 of the Construction Industry Arbitration
Law provides that CIAC arbitral awards cannot be assailed, except on pure
questions of law and only before this Court:

SECTION 19. Finality of Awards. - The arbitral award shall be

binding upon the parties. It shall be final and inappealable except on
questions of law which shall be appealable to the Supreme Court.

Since the Construction Industry Arbitration Law's adoption in 1985,

procedural law and related jurisprudence have made it appear that appeals
may also be taken to the Court of Appeals. There, the factual findings of
CIAC arbitral tribunals may supposedly be assailed. This has been an
unfortunate mistake. The Court of Appeals' supposed appellate jurisdiction
to freely review factual issues finds no basis in substantive law.

On February 27, 1991, this Court adopted Circular No. 1-91,

"Prescribing the Rules Governing Appeals to the Court of Appeals from a
Final Order or Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial
Agencies."

Section 3 of Circular No. 1-91 enabled appeals from decisions of

quasi-judicial agencies to be taken to the Court of Appeals on questions of
fact, questions of law, or both questions of fact and law. Section 1 made this
recourse available in all cases where appeals were "allowed by statute to the
Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court." Further, Section 1 also listed some
quasi-judicial agencies whose decisions may be appealed to the Court of
Appeals. This enumeration did not include the CIAC. Sections 1, 2, and 3
of Circular No. 1-91 read:

15
Id. at 256-257.
16
Id. at 257.
Separate Opinion 10 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

1. Scope. - These rules shall apply to appeals from final orders or

decision of the Court of Tax Appeals. They shall also apply from final
orders or decisions on any quasi-judicial agency from which an appeal is
now allowed by statute to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
Among these agencies are the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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, Secretary of Agrarian Reforms and
Special Agrarian Courts under RA 6657, Government Service Insurance
System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions
Board, Insurance Commission and Philippine Atomic Energy
Commission.

2. Case not covered. - These rules shall not apply to decisions and
interlocutory orders of the National Labor Relations Commission or the
Secretary of Labor and Employment under the Labor Code of the
Philippines, the Central Board of Assessment Appeals, and other quasi-
judicial agencies from which no appeal to the courts is prescribed or
allowed by statute.

3. Who may appeal and where to appeal. - The appeal of a party

affected by a final order, decision, or judgment of the Court of Tax
Appeals or of a quasi-judicial agency shall be taken to the Court of
Appeals within the period in the manner herein provided, whether the
appeal involved questions of fact or of law or mixed questions of fact and
law. From final judgments or decisions of the Court of Appeals, the
aggrieved party may appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court as provided
in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Republic Act No. 7902, amending Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, was approved on February 23, 1995.
It stated that the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals
includes "all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of...
quasi-judicial agencies... except those falling within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court[:}"

SECTION 1. Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Big. 129, as amended,

known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, is hereby further
amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. - The Court of Appeals shall

exercise:

"(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final

judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of
Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security
I
Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission
and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling
Separate Opinion 11 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in

accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the
Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended,
the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the
third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth
paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 .

. . . . (Emphasis supplied)

On May 16, 1995, this Court adopted Circular No. 1-95, rev1smg
Circular No. 1-91. Unlike Circular No. 1-91, Circular No. 1-95 explicitly
included the CIAC as among those quasi-judicial agencies whose awards
and judgments may be appealed to the Court of Appeals. Section 1 of
Circular No. 1-95 reads:

1. SCOPE. - These rules 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, Land Registration Authority, Social
Security Commission, Office of the President, 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 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees
Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance
Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of
Investments, and Construction Industry Arbitration Commission.
(Emphasis supplied)

The rules stated in Circular No. 1-95 were formally included in the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 43, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 substantially
reproduced 17 Sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of Circular No. 1-95. 18 As with Circular

17 RULES OF COURT, Rule 43, secs. 1, 2, 3, and 5 state:

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-
I
judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these ageucies 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 Invention Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic
Energy Co:rmnission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and
voluntaTy arbitrators authorized by law. (n)
Section 2. Cases not covered. - This Rule shall not apply to judgments or fmal orders issued under
the Labor Code of the Philippines. (n)
Section 3. \\/here to appeal. - An appeal under this Rule may be taken to the Court of Appeals within
the period and in the marmer herein provided, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or
mixed questions of fact and law. (n)

Section 5. How appeal taken. -Appeal shall be taken by filL'lg a verified petition for review in seven
(7) legible copies with the Court of Appeals, with proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse
party and on the court or agency a quo. The original copy of the petition intended for the Court of
Appeals shall be indicated as such by the petitioner.
Separate Opinion 12 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

No. 1-95, Rule 43, Section 1 expressly includes the CIAC as among those
quasi-judicial agencies whose awards and judgments may be appealed to the
Court of Appeals.

This Court's 2001 Decision in Metro Construction v. Chatham

Properties 19 offers a rationalization for why CIAC awards may supposedly
be appealed to the Court of Appeals. There, this Court alluded to a
"procedural mutation" from Circular No. 1-91, to Circular No. 1-95, and
through to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It also cited Republic Act No.
7902 as statutory basis:

Through Circular No. 1-91, the Supreme Court intended to

establish a uniform procedure for the review of the final orders or
decisions of the Court of Tax Appeals and other quasi-judicial agencies
provided that an appeal therefrom is then allowed under existing statutes
to either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. The Circular
designated the Court of Appeals as the reviewing body to resolve
questions of fact or of law or mixed questions of fact and law.

It is clear that Circular No. 1-91 covers the CIAC. In the first
place, it is a quasi-judicial agency. A quasi-judicial agency or body has
been defined as an organ of government other than a court and other than a
legislature, which affects the rights of private parties through either
adjudication or rule-making. The very definition of an administrative
agency includes its being vested with quasi-judicial powers. The ever
increasing variety of powers and functions given to administrative
agencies recognizes the need for the active intervention of administrative
agencies in matters calling for technical knowledge and speed in countless
controversies which cannot possibly be handled by regular courts. The
CIAC's primary function is that of a quasi-judicial agency, which is to
adjudicate claims and/or determine rights in accordance with procedures
set forth in E.O. No. 1008.

In the second place, the language of Section 1 of Circular No. 1-91

emphasizes the obvious inclusion of the CIAC even if it is not named in
the enumeration of quasi-judicial agencies. The introductory words
"[a]mong these agencies are" preceding the enumeration of specific quasi-
judicial agencies only highlight the fact that the list is not exclusive or
conclusive. Further, the overture stresses and ack.'l.owledges the existence
of other quasi-judicial agencies not included in the enumeration but should
be deemed included. In addition, the CIAC is obviously excluded in the
catalogue of cases not covered by the Circular and mentioned in Section 2
thereof for the reason that at the time the Circular took effect, E.O. No.

18 In addition to sec. I of Circular No 1-95 (previously quoted), secs. 2, 3, ,md 5 provide:

2. CASES NOT COVERED. - These rules shali not apply to judgments or final orders issued under
the Labor Code of the Philippines.
3. WHERE TO APPEAL. - An appeal under these rules 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.

5. HOW APPEAL TAKEN. -Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review in seven
(7) legible copies with the Court of Appeals, with proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse
party and on the court or agency a quo. The original copy of the petition intended for the Court of
Appeals shall be indicated as such by the petitioner.
19 4 I 8 Phil. 176 (200 I) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First Division].
Separate Opinion 13 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

1008 allows appeals to the Supreme Court on questions of law.

In sum, under Circular No. 1-91, appeals from the arbitral awards
of the CIAC may be brought to the Court of Appeals, and not to the
Supreme Court alone. The grounds for the appeal are likewise broadened
to include appeals on questions of facts and appeals involving mixed
questions of fact and law.

The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over appeals from final

orders or decisions of the CIAC is further fortified by the amendments to
B.P. Big. 129, as introduced by R.A. No. 7902. With the amendments, the
Court of Appeals is vested with appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial
Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commissions, except "those within the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the
Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions
of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and
subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act
of 1948."

Any remaining doubt on the procedural mutation of the provisions

on appeal in E.O. No. 1008, vis-a-vis Circular No. 1-91 and R.A. No.
7902, was completely removed with the issuance by the Supreme Court of
Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 and the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. Both categorically include the CIAC in the enumeration of
quasi-judicial agencies comprehended therein. Section 3 of the former
and Section 3, Rule 43 of the latter, explicitly expand the issues that may
be raised in an appeal from quasi-judicial agencies or instrumentalities to
the Court of Appeals within the period and in the manner therein provided.
Indisputably, the review of the CIAC award may involve either questions
of fact, of law, or of fact and law.

In view of all the foregoing, we reject MCI's submission that

Circular No. 1-91, B.P. Big. 129, as amended by R.A. 7902, Revised
Administrative Circular 1-95, and Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure failed to efficaciously modify the provision on appeals in E.O.
No. 1008. We further discard MCI's claim that these amendments have
the effect of merely changing the forum for appeal from the Supreme
Court to the Court of Appeals. 20 (Citations omitted)

It is opportune to repudiate the mistaken notion that appeals on

questions of fact of CIAC awards may be coursed through the Court of
Appeals. No statute actually vests jurisdiction on the Court of Appeals to
entertain petitions for review emanating from the CIAC.

Metro Construction's reference to a "procedural mutation" effected by

Circular No. 1-91, Circular No. 1-95, and Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
I
Procedure does not broaden the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. Neither
do the amendments introduced to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 by Republic Act

20
Id. at 202-205.
Separate Opinion 14 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

No. 7902 broaden the Court of Appeals' appellate jurisdiction as to extend it

to a factual review of CIAC arbitral awards.

It is elementary that jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law, not of

procedural law:

[J]urisdiction is "the power to hear and determine cases of the general

class to which the proceedings in question belong." Jurisdiction is a
matter of substantive law. Thus, an action may be filed only with the court
or tribunal where the Constitution or a statute says it can be brought.21
(Emphasis supplied)

The Construction Industry Arbitration Law-through its Section 19,

in relation to this Court's constitutionally-established appellate
jurisdiction22-is the only substantive law which pronounces which court
has appellate jurisdiction over CIAC arbitral awards: "It shall be final and
inappealable except on questions of law which shall be appealable to the
Supreme Court."

Its pronouncement on how appellate jurisdiction exclusively resided

in this Court was not modified or otherwise affected by Republic Act No.
7902.

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 had long been in force when the
Construction Industry Arbitration Law was adopted in 1985. Prior to its
amendment in 1995, Section 9(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 already
vested the then Intermediate Appellate Court with exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over "final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, or
awards ... quasi-judicial agencies ... except those falling within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution," just
as Republic Act No. 7902 did with the Court of Appeals:

SECTION 9. Jurisdiction. - The Intermediate Appellate Court

shall exercise:

(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments,

decisions, resolutions, orders, or awards of Regional Trial

21 City o/Lapu-Lapu v. Phil. Economic Zone Authority, 748 Phil. 473,522 (2014) [Per J. Leanen, Second
Division] citing Vi/lagracia v. Fifth (5th) Shari'a District Court, 734 Phil. 239 (2014) [Per J. Leanen,
Third Division]; and Nocum v. Tan, 507 Phil. 620, 626 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second
!
Division]. [Per J Leanen, Second Division].
22 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 5(2)(e) states:
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court
may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is ;nvolved.

Separate Opinion 15 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards, or

commissions, except 1hose falling within 1he appellate
jurisdiction of 1he Supreme Court in accordance wi1h 1he
Constitution, 1he provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph
(I) of 1he 1hird paragraph and subparagraph (4) of 1he fourth
paragraph of Section 17 of1he Judiciary Act of 1948.

The Construction Industry Arbitration Law could not have been

ignorant of the then Intermediate Appellate Court's appellate jurisdiction.
When the Construction Industry Arbitration Law made appeals on questions
of law exclusive to this Court, it was with a complete awareness that regular
appeals could have otherwise also been made available through the
Intermediate Appellate Court. Still, it deliberately elected to make no such
appeal available.

Section 19 of the Construction Industry Arbitration Law calculatedly

made Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 9(3)-a counterpart statutory
provision on appellate jurisdiction-ineffectual to appeals involving factual
review of CIAC arbitral awards.

Republic Act No. 7902 did amend Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section
9(3). However, its amendments added only two statements: first, an
enumeration of examples of quasi-judicial agencies whose decisions were
subject to the Court of Appeals' appellate jurisdiction;23 and second, a
reference to the Labor Code in its consideration of the exceptions to the
Court of Appeals' exclusive appellate jurisdiction. 24

Thus, despite Republic Act No. 7902's amendments, Batas Pambansa

Blg. 129, Section 9(3)'s operative clause remained unchanged, that is, that
the renamed Court of Appeals would exercise "[e]xclusive appellate
jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards
of ... quasi-judicial agencies ... except those falling within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution":

Batas Pambansa Big. 129 Republic Act No. 7902

SECTION 9. Jurisdiction. - The Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. - The Court of
Intermediate Appellate Court shall Appeals shall
exercise: exercise:

.... . ...

(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over

f
all final judgments, decisions, all final judgments, decisions,
resolutions, orders, or awards of resolutions, orders or awards of
Regional Trial Courts and auasi0judicial Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial

23 It inserted the phrase, "including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security
Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission[.]"
24 It inserted the phrase, "the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as
amended[,]"
Separate Opinion 16 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

agencies, instrumentalities, boards, or agencies, instrumentalities, boards or

commissions, commissions,

including the Securities and Exchange

Commission, the Social Security
Commission, the Employees
Compensation Commission and the Civil
Service Commission,

except those falling within the appellate except those falling within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
accordance with the Constitution, accordance with the Constitution,

the Labor Code of the Philippines under

Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended,

the proV1s10ns of this Act, and of the provisions of this Act, and of
subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph
and subparagraph (4) of the fourth and subparagraph (4) of the fourth
paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary
Act of 1948. Act of 1948.

If, in 1985, this operative clause did not sway the Construction
Industry Arbitration Law to enable regular factual appeals to the
Intermediate Appellate Court, then, neither should its verbatim restatement,
in 1995, enable appeals on factual issues to the Court of Appeals.

With the inefficacy of Republic Act No. 7902, Metro Construction's

proffered "procedural mutation" is left with nothing to rely on except, as its
own terminology implies, mere provisions of procedural law: first, Circular
No. 1-91; second, Circular No. 1-95; and third, Rule 43, Section 1 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Still, these are not constitutional or statutory substantive law

provisions. Thus, they fail to vest appellate jurisdiction over CIAC awards
in the Court of Appeals. Contrary to what Metro Construction stated, they
could not have "broadened"25 appellate jurisdiction over CIAC awards, or
"expand[ed] the issues" 26 (i.e., the subject matter) that may be considered in
appeals of CIAC awards.

While there seemed to have been basis for expanding appeals, there
has also been an apparent basis for totally restricting appeals.

Another seeming basis for concluding that appellate jurisdiction over

CIAC Awards has been altered is A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC, the Special Rules
f
25 Metro Construction, Inc. v. Chatham Properties, Inc., 418 Phil. 176,203 (2001) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr.,
First Division].
26 Id. at 204.
Separate Opinion 17 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution (the Special ADR Rules). Rule

19.7 of these Rules precludes parties who submit themselves to arbitration
from questioning arbitral awards, whether by appeal or by certiorari:

Rule 19. 7. No appeal or certiorari on the merits of an arbitral

award. - An agreement to refer a dispute to arbitration shall mean that the
arbitral award shall be final and binding.

Consequently, a party to an arbitration is precluded from filing an

appeal or a petition for certiorari questioning the merits of an arbitral
award.

The disallowance of appeals under the Special ADR Rules is

consistent with the ADR Law. While Section 46 of the ADR Law
contemplates appeals subsequent to arbitration proceedings, it pertains only
to appeals from regional trial court decisions "confirming, vacating, setting
aside, modifying or correcting an arbitral award," not to appeals from an
arbitral award itself:

SECTION 46. Appeal from Court Decisions on Arbitral Awards.

- A decision of the Regional Trial Court confirming, vacating, setting
aside, modifying or correcting an arbitral award may be appealed to the
Court of Appeals in accordance with the rules of procedure to be
promulgated by the Supreme Court.

The losing party who appeals from the judgment of the court
confrrming an arbitral award shall be required by the appellate court to
post a counterbond executed in favor of the prevailing party equal to the
amount of the award in accordance with the rules to be promulgated by the
Supreme Court.

Fruehauf Electronics Philippines Corporation v. Technology

Electronics Assembly and Management Pacific Corporation 27 confirms that
appeals are not a remedy against arbitral awards:

The errors of an arbitral tribunal are not subject to correction by the

judiciary. As a private alternative to court proceedings, arbitration is
meant to be an end, not the beginning, of litigation. Thus, the arbitral
award is final and binding on the parties by reason of their contract - the
arbitration agreement. 28 (Citations omitted)

However, the same Fruehauf Decision has settled that construction

arbitration through the quasi-judicial mechanism of the CIAC must be
distinguished from general commercial arbitration through contractually
established arbitral tribunals. This, even as the ADR Law-in Chapter 6-
references construction arbitration. Fruehauf clearly states that "as a quasi- f
judicial body, the CIAC's awards are specifically made appealable to this

27 800 Phil. 721 (2016) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

28
Id. at 742-743.
Separate Opinion 18 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

Court by law[.]" 29

Thus, the mechanics of appeals, as originally spelled out by the

Construction Industry Arbitration Law in 1985, remain unaltered. Appeals
have not been expanded to possibly be coursed through the Court of
Appeals, and there raise factual issues, as Metro Construction and Rule 43
of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure state. Neither have they been
restricted or entirely negated, as the Special ADR Rules suggest.

III

CE Construction explained the practical import of Rule 43 of the 1997

Rules of Civil Procedure. It emphasized that Rule 43 did not abandon the
exclusiveness of appeals to questions of law:

Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure standardizes appeals

from quasi-judicial agencies. Rule 43, Section 1 explicitly lists the CIAC
as among the quasi-judicial agencies covered by Rule 43. Section 3
indicates that appeals through Petitions for Review under Rule 43 are to
"be taken to the Court of Appeals . . . whether the appeal involves
questions of fact, oflaw, or mixed questions of fact and law."

This is not to say that factual findings of CIAC arbitral tribunals

may now be assailed before the Court of Appeals. Section 3's statement
"whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions
of fact and law'' merely recognizes variances in the disparate modes of
appeal that Rule 43 standardizes: there were those that enabled questions
of fact; there were those that enabled questions of law, and there were
those that enabled mixed questions fact and law. Rule 43 emphasizes that
though there may have been variances, all appeals under its scope are to be
brought before the Court of Appeals. However, in keeping with the
Construction Industry Arbitration Law, any appeal from CIAC arbitral
tribunals must remain limited to questions oflaw.

Hi-Precision Steel Center, Inc. v. Lim Kim Steel Builders, Inc.

explained the wisdom underlying the limitation of appeals to pure
questions oflaw:

Section 19 makes it crystal clear that questions of

fact cannot be raised in proceedings before the Supreme
Court - which is not a trier of facts - in respect of an
arbitral award rendered under the aegis of the CIAC.
Consideration of the animating purpose of voluntary
arbitration in general, and arbitration under the aegis of the
CIAC in particular, requires us to apply rigorously the
above principle embodied in Section 19 that the Arbitral
Tribunal's findings of fact shall be final and unappealable.

Voluntary arbitration involves the reference of a

I
dispute to an impartial body, the members of which are

29 Id. at 749. See fu. 109 and sec. 19 oft_11e Construction Industry Arbitration Law.
Separate Opinion 19 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

chosen by the parties themselves, which parties freely

consent in advance to abide by the arbitral award issued
after proceedings where both parties had the opportunity to
be heard. The basic objective is to provide a speedy and
inexpensive method of settling disputes by allowing the
parties to avoid the formalities, delay, expense and
aggravation which commonly accompany ordinary
litigation, especially litigation which goes through the
entire hierarchy of courts. [The Construction Industry
Arbitration Law] created an arbitration facility to which the
construction industry in the Philippines can have recourse.
The [Construction Industry Arbitration Law] was enacted
to encourage the early and expeditious settlement of
disputes in the construction industry, a public policy the
implementation of which is necessary and important for the
realization of national development goals.

Consistent with this restrictive approach, this Court is duty-bound

to be extremely watchful and to ensure that an appeal does not become an
ingenious means for undermining the integrity of arbitration or for
conveniently setting aside the conclusions that arbitral processes make.
Appeals are not an artifice for the parties to undermine the process they
voluntarily elected to engage in. To prevent this Court from being a party
to such perversion, this Court's primordial inclination must be to uphold
the factual findings of arbitral tribunals:

Aware of the objective of voluntary arbitration in

the labor field, in the construction industry, and in any other
area for that matter, the Court will not assist one or the
other or even both parties in any effort to subvert or defeat
that objective for their private purposes. The Court will not
review the factual findings of an arbitral tribunal upon the
artfal allegation that such body had "misapprehended the
facts" and will not pass upon issues which are, at bottom,
issues o_ffact, no matter how cleverly disguised they might
be as "legal questions." The parties here had recourse to
arbitration and chose the arbitrators themselves; they must
have had confidence in such arbitrators. The Court will
not, therefore, permit the parties to relitigate before it the
issues of facts previously presented and argued before the
Arbitral Tribunal, save only where a very clear showing is
made that, in reaching its factual conclusions, the Arbitral
Tribunal committed an error so egregious and hurtful to one
party as to constitute a grave abuse of discretion resulting
in lack or loss of jurisdiction. Prototypical examples would
be factual conclusions of the Tribunal which resulted in
deprivation of one or the other party of a fair opportunity to
present its position before the Arbitral Tribunal, and an
award obtained through fraud or the corruption of
arbitrators. Any other, more relaxed, ruie would result in
setting at naught the basic objective of a voluntary
arbitration and would reduce arbitration to (I largely
inutile institution. 30 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) I
°
3 CE Construction Corp. v. Araneta Center, Inc., 816 Phil. 221, 258-260 (2017) [Per J. Leanen, Second
Division].
Separate Opinion 20 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

Section 19 of the Construction Industry Arbitration Law's limitation

of appeals to questions of law echoes Section 29 of Republic Act No. 876,
the Arbitration Law that had previously been in effect:

SECTION 29. Appeals. - An appeal may be taken from an order

made in a proceeding under this Act, or from a judgment entered upon an
award through certiorari proceedings, but such appeals shall be limited to
questions of law. The proceedings upon such an appeal, including the
judgment thereon shall be governed by the Rules of Court in so far as they
are applicable. (Emphasis supplied)

However, despite Section 29, Republic Act No. 876 also provided
grounds for vacating arbitral awards. These grounds concern "instances
when the integrity of the arbitral tribunal itself has been put injeopardy": 31

SECTION 24. Grounds for vacating award. - In any one of the

following cases, the court must make an order vacating the award upon the
petition of any party to the controversy when such party proves
affirmatively that in the arbitration proceedings:

(a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue

means; or

(b) That there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators or

any of them; or

(c) That the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to

postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to
hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; that one or
more of the arbitrators was disqualified to act as such under section
nine hereof, and wilfully refrained from disclosing such
disqualifications or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of
any party have been materially prejudiced; or

(d) Tnat the arbitrators exceeded t.h.eir powers, . or so imperfectly

executed them, that a mutual, final and definite award upon the
subject matter submitted to them was not made.

Where an award is vacated, the court, in its discretion, may direct a new
hearing either before the same arbitrators or before a new arbitrator or
arbitrators to be chosen in the manner provided in the submission or
contract for the selection of the original arbitrator or arbitrators, and any
provision limiting the time in which the arbitrators may make a decision
shall be deemed applicable to the new arbitration and to commence froin
the date of the court's order.

Vvnere the court vacates an award, costs, not exce;eding fifty pesos and
disbursements may be awarded to the prevailing party and the payment
thereof may be enforced in like manner as the payment of costs upon the
motion in an action.
I
31 Id. at 229.
Separate Opinion 21 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

Echoing the four highly exceptional grounds stipulated by Section 24

of Republic Act No. 876, jurisprudence has recognized extremely restrictive
grounds for revisiting factual issues involved in an arbitral tribunal's
decision. Citing Spouses David v. Construction Industry and Arbitration
Commission, 32 CE Construction explained:

Thus, even as exceptions to the highly restrictive nature of appeals

may be contemplated, these exceptions are only on the narrowest on
grounds. Factual findings of CIAC arbitral tribunals may be revisited not
merely because arbitral tribunals may have erred, not even on the already
exceptional grounds traditionally available in Rule 45 Petitions. Rather,
factual findings may be reviewed only in cases where CIAC arbitral
tribunals conducted their affairs in a haphazard, immodest manner that
the most basic integrity of the arbitral process is imperiled. In Spouses
David v. Construction Industry and Arbitration Commission:

We reiterate the rule that factual findings of construction

arbitrators are final and conclusive and not reviewable by
this Court on appeal, except when the petitioner proves
affirmatively that: (1) the award was procured by
corruption, fraud or other undue means; (2) there was
evident partiality or corruption of the arbitrators or of any
of them; (3) the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in
refusing to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause
shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and
material to the controversy; (4) one or more of the
arbitrators were disqualified to act as such under section
nine of Republic Act No. 876 and willfully refrained from
disclosing such disqualifications or of any other
misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been
materially prejudiced; or (5) the arbitrators exceeded their
powers, or so imperfectly executed them, that a mutual,
final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted
to them was not made. 33 (Emphasis supplied, citations
omitted)

More recently, in 2019, Tonda Medical Center v. Rante34 again cited

Spouses David and explained:

Thus, questions on whether the CIAC arbitral tribunals conducted their

affairs in a haphazard and immodest manner that the most basic integrity
of the arbitral process was imperiled are not insulated from judicial
review. Thus:

x x x We reiterate the rule that factual fmdings of

construction arbitrators are final and conclusive and not
reviewable by this Court on appeal, except when the
petitioner proves affirmatively that: (1) the award was f
32 479 Phil. 578 (2004) (Per J. Puno, Second Division].
33 CE Construction Corp. v. Araneta Center. Inc., 816 Phil. 221, 260-262 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division].
34 G.R. No. 230645, July 1, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshe1£'showdocs/l/65469>
[Per J. Reyes, Jr., Second Division].
Separate Opinion 22 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (2)

there was evident partiality or corruption of the arbitrators
or of any of them; (3) the arbitrators were guilty of
misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing upon
sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence
pertinent and material to the controversy; (4) one or more
of the arbitrators were disqualified to act as such under
section nine of Republic Act No. 876 and willfully
refrained from disclosing such disqualifications or of any
other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have
been materially prejudiced; or (5) the arbitrators exceeded
their powers, or so imperfectly executed them, that a
mutual, final and definite award upon the subject matter
submitted to them was not made. 35 (Citations omitted)

Thus, there may still be factual review of findings made by CIAC

arbitral tribunals, but only under very narrow grounds relating to the
integrity of the arbitral tribunal.

Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure enables the correction of

actions in excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by bodies or
officers exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Rule 65 is a means of
operationalizing the constitutionally-enshrined, inalienable dimension of
judicial power "to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government." 36

Since the CIAC is a "quasi-judicial, administrative agency equipped

with technical proficiency that enables it to efficiently and promptly resolve
conflicts[,]" 37 a petition for certiorari should rightly be available as a means
of redress from the CIAC.

However, the availability of petitions for certiorari as a remedy does

not stand by its lonesome. The possibility of relief through such modality
must be viewed through the lens of how arbitration under the CIAC exists
within the larger, general framework of arbitration put in place, initially by
Republic Act No. 876 (the ADR Law), and eventually by Republic Act No.
9285 (the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of2004).

To recall, CE Construction explained how "[a]rbitration of

construction disputes through the CIAC was formally incorporated into the
general statutory framework on alternative dispute resolution through
[Sections 34 and 35 of] Republic Act No. 9285[.]" 38 Even prior to Republic /J
Act No. 9285, Republic Act No. 9184 (the Government Procurement f
35
Id.
36 CONST., art. VIII, sec. I, par. 2.
37 CE Construction Corp. v. Araneta Center, Inc., 816 Phil. 221, 253 (2017) [Per J. Leanen, Second
Division].
38
Id.at 252.
Separate Opinion 23 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

Reform Act) referenced Republic Act No. 876 in affirming and delineating
the competence of the CIAC.

It is with this lens that acknowledges the delimiting statutory

framework of Republic Act No. 876 and Republic Act No. 9285 that
jurisprudence has maintained that "factual findings of construction
arbitrators are final and conclusive and not reviewable" 39 except "in [those]
instances when the integrity of the arbitral tribunal itself has been put in
jeopardy."40 Spouses David identifies five prototypical instances when an
arbitral tribunal's award have been put in jeopardy:

(1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means; (2)
there was evident partiality or corruption of the arbitrators or of any of
them; (3) the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone
the hearing upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence
pertinent and material to the controversy; (4) one or more of the arbitrators
were disqualified to act as such under section nine of Republic Act No.
876 and willfully refrained from disclosing such disqualifications or of
any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been
materially prejudiced; or ( 5) the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so
imperfectly executed them, that a mutual, final and definite award upon
the subject matter submitted to them was not made. 41

In view of these, I join the ponencia in maintaining that the CIAC's

findings of fact may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals on certiorari, that
is, on grave abuse of discretion. However, in the unique context of
reviewing CIAC arbitral tribunal awards, a calibrated understanding of grave
abuse of discretion must govern, that is, the very narrow grounds that go into
the integrity of the CIAC arbitral tribunal, and, in addition, outright
violations of the Constitution or laws.

To be clear, this calibrated understanding of grave abuse of discretion

in the specific context of review via certiorari of CIAC arbitral tribunal
awards does not undermine the integrity of the remedy of certiorari. The
remedial vehicle of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was created by this
Court pursuant, in particular, to its rule-making power under Article VIII,
Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution. This power to "[p]romulgate rules
concerning ... pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts" proceeds from
judicial power in general.

Judicial power pertains to our capacity to authoritatively read and

interpret laws. Rule 65, then, is an expression of this Court's interpretative
authority, one that is applicable to general circumstances involving grave
f
39 Spouses David v. Construction Industry and Arbitration Commission, 479 Phil. 578, 590 (2004) [Per J.
Puno, Second Division].
4 ° CE Construction Corp. v. Araneta Center, Inc., 816 Phil. 221, 229 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division].
41 Spouses David v. Construction Industry and Arbitration Commission, 479 Phil. 578, 590-591 (2004)
[Per J. Puno, Second Division].
Separate Opinion 24 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

abuse of discretion. In appropriate situations, such an expression may be

refined or adjusted, given this Court's peculiar appreciation of facts and
laws. This calibration of grave abuse of discretion and the availability of
certiorari vis-a-vis CIAC arbitral awards (which I join the ponencia in
advancing) is one such situation of a proper refinement or adjustment of how
a procedural rule, i.e., Rule 65, previously laid out by this Court should
apply.

Beyond the narrow grounds for review on certiorari (i.e., grounds that
go into the integrity of the CIAC arbitral tribunal, or outright violations of
the Constitution or laws), rulings of the CIAC may be reviewed only by this
Court on purely legal questions raised through petitions for review on
certiorari. As the ponencia explains:

A harmonization of these conflicting rules leaves the Court with

the conclusion that the inclusion of CIAC under Rule 43 appeals is
without footing in the legal history of CIAC, and therefore must be
unequivocally reversed.

More specifically, the Court holds that the direct recourse of an

appeal of a CIAC award on questions of law directly to this Court is the
rule, pursuant to E.O 1008 and R.A. 9285, notwithstanding Rule 43 on
CA's jurisdiction over quasi-judicial agencies, and Rule 45 in its exclusive
application to lower courts. Thus, an appeal from an arbitral award of
CIAC may take either of two tracks, as determined by the subject matter
of the challenge.

On the one hand, if the parties seek to challenge a finding oflaw of

the tribunal, then the same may be appealed only to the Supreme Court
under Rule 45. To determine whether or not a question is one of law
which may be brought before the Court under Rule 45, it is useful to recall
that a question of a question of law involves a doubt or controversy as to
what the law is on a certain state of facts, as opposed to a question of fact
which involves a doubt or difference that arises as to the truth or falsehood
of facts, or when the query necessarily calls for a review and reevaluation
of the whole evidence, including the credibility of witnesses, existence of
specific surrounding circumstances, and the decided probabilities of the
situation. The test here is not the party's characterization of the question
before the court, but whether the court may resolve the issue brought to it
by solely inquiring as to whether the law was properly applied and without
going into a review of the evidence.

On the other hand, if the parties seek to challenge CIAC's finding

of fact, the same may only be allowed under either of two premises,
namely assailing the very integrity of the composition of the tribunal, or
alleging the arbitral tribunal's violation of the Constitution or positive law,
in which cases the appeal may be filed before the CA on these limited /
grounds through the special civil action of a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65, in accordance with Section 4 in relation to Section 1, Rule 65 of
the Rules of Civil Procedure:
Separate Opinion 25 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

The resort to Rule 65, instead of Rule 43, further finds support in
the very nature of the factual circumstances which trigger said exceptional
factual review - those that center not on the actual findings of fact but on
the integrity of the tribunal that makes these findings, or their compliance
with the Constitution or positive law, i.e., any of the following factual
allegations: (1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other
undue means; (2) there was evident partiality or corruption of the
arbitrators or of any of them; (3) the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct
in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; (4)
one or more of the arbitrators were disqualified to act as such under
Section nine of Republic Act No. 876 or the Arbitration Law (R.A. 876),
and willfully refrained from disclosing such disqualifications or of any
other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been materially
prejudiced; or (5) the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly
executed them, that a mutual, final and definite award upon the subject
matter submitted to them was not made. 42

The approach outlined by the ponencia is consistent with the primacy

accorded to arbitral awards, fundamentally, because of arbitration's nature as
a dispute resolution mechanism animated by the parties' free and voluntary
intent to engage an arbitrator's expertise free from the rigidities of the
conventional court system. "Arbitration is a creature of contract[,]"43
devised precisely to be free of the restraints of litigating in court. This
makes it both economically efficient and equitable.

As a creature of contract, arbitration internalizes and limits the cost of

dispute resolution between the parties. It is equitable in that, it will free the
dockets of courts (which, through taxpayers money is a subsidized means of
dispute resolution) enabling them to devote more time, energy, and
resources to those conflicts with a more pronounced public interest, such as
those where power relations suffer from a greater deficit (e.g., rape and
sexual abuse, labor disputes, cases raising questions of social justice, and
skewed commercial relations such as consumer grievances), public interest
cases (such as those raising constitutional issues), and matters of social order
(e.g., criminal cases).

The understanding of arbitration as a creature of contract facilitating

the parties' realization of their private ends has particularly ripened in
international commercial arbitration:

In international law, the basic theory of arbitration is simple and

rather elegant. Arbitral jurisdiction is entirely consensual. As in Roman
law and the systems influenced by it, arbitration is a creature of contract.
The arbitrator's powers are derived from the parties' contract. Hence, in
the classic sense, an arbitrator is not entitled to do anything unauthorized
by the parties: arbiter nihil extra compromissum facere potest. An arbitral
award rendered within the framework of the common agreement of the
I
42 Ponencia, pp. 40--43.
43 W. Michael Reisman, The Breakdown ofthe Control Mechanism in ICSID Arbitration, 1989 DUKE L.J.
739, 745 (1989).
Separate Opinion 26 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

parties is itself part of the contract and hence binding on them.

Conversely, a purported award which is accomplished in ways
inconsistent with the shared contractual expectations of the parties is
something to which they had not agreed. The arbitrator has exceeded his
power or, to use the technical term, committed an exces de pouvoir. If the
allegation of such an excess can be sustained, the putative award is null,
and may be ignored by the "losing" party.

Arbitration is advantageous to parties because it gives them an

additional contractual option for resolving disputes without engaging
community structures. It is also advantageous to the community: it allows
economical resolution of private disputes that are often diversions from
productive activity, without more general disruption and without direct
cost to the community. The doctrine of exces de pouvoir functions as an
indispensable control mechanism in this scheme. Without it, arbitration
would lose its character of restrictive delegation and the arbitrator would
become a decisionmaker with virtually absolute discretion; whatever
limits may have been prescribed by the parties would become meaningless
because the arbitrator would be answerable effectively to no one. Exces
de pouvoir thus is the conceptual foundation of control for arbitration. 44
(Citations omitted)

Another author keenly discussed the particular utility of arbitration in

commercial relationships. His discussion also explored how the
"contractarian model" animated the United States' Federal Arbitration Act's
pioneering delineation of the distinctly restrictive grounds for vacating
arbitral awards. Quite notably, our own pioneering Arbitral Law, Republic
Act No. 876, would adopt in its Section 24 precisely the same restrictive
grounds spelled out by the Federal Arbitration Act:

The contractarian model made sense when applied to commercial

relationships because the merchants who employed it typically subscribed
to a common set of business practices. When they had disputes, they
wanted neutrals grounded in those practices to make decisions based on
custom and mutual interest They did not want anyone, whether a genuine
judge or a minor league one, to mechanically apply fixed legal rules.

With [Julius Henry] Cohen as its champion, the American Bar

Association's Committee on Commerce, Trade, and Commercial Law
succeeded in pushing the [Federal Arbitration Act] through Congress. The
[Federal Arbitration Act] . . . seems clearly to assume a role for the
arbitrator consistent with the contractarian model. That perspective comes
through in the provisions for judicial review of awards. Section 10 of the
[Federal Arbitration Act] contains a list of four grounds for vacating
arbitral awards:

(1) [W]here the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue

means:
(2) [W]here there was evident partiality or corruption in the
arbitrators, or either of them;
(3) [W]here the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to
f
postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in

44 Id. at 745-746.
Separate Opinion 27 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the

controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of
any party have been prejudiced; or
(4) [W]here the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so
imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite
award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. 45
(Citations omitted)

It would be regressive, both for contracting parties in arbitration and

to society in general, for this Court to insist on expansive judicial review of
arbitral awards. Unduly expansive judicial review undermines an otherwise
effective, self-contained mechanism for dispute resolution. Any form of
conflict resolution will see the losing party dissatisfied. Yet it must, at some
point, have a definite ending. Interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium. 46 The
further continuation of otherwise settled conflicts, particularly for those
which are distinctly private in character, must be pursued only when there
are compelling, ineluctable grounds.

When a private conflict may otherwise be put to rest by the

mechanism specifically devised by the parties for it, it is a disservice to the
larger community to compel a court to have that conflict be an exclusionary
object of its attention. This is what it means to not disturb arbitral awards,
lest the integrity of the arbitral tribunal itself be compromised. As, when an
arbitral tribunal is wanting in integrity, what are committed are not mere
mistakes by erstwhile experts, but a definite offense against fairness and
truth; there is then a miscarriage of justice.

Ultimately, the ponencia is correct in concluding that the "[Court of

Appeals] misapplied its appellate function when it delved into settling the
factual matters, and modified the mathematical computation of the CIAC
with respect to the presence or absence of an outstanding balance payable to
[Ross Systems International, Inc.]" 47 It being error for the Court of Appeals
to abandon the CIAC arbitral tribunal's award, the assailed Court of Appeals
Decision must be reversed, and the arbitral tribunal's award reinstated.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote that the Petition subject of G.R. No.

230112 be PARTIALLY GRANTED and the assailed October 28, 2016
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 145753 be reversed
with respect to Ross Systems International, Inc.'s entitlement to
Pl,088,214.83. The May 10, 2016 Final Award of the arbitral tribunal of the
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission must be reinstated subject to f
45 Paul F. Kirgis, Judicial Review and the limits ofArbitral Authority: Lessons from the Law ofContract,
81 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. 99, 100-101 (2007). Note that Kirgis pursued a critical aualysis of the narrowing
of grouods for judicial review of arbitral awards, aud ultimately maintained the need for "[s]ome
modest level of judicial review[.]" (Id. at 121.)
46 W. Michael Reismau, The Breakdown of the Control Mechanism in JCSJD Arbitration, 1989 DUKE L.J.
739, 744 (1989).
47
Ponencia, p. 57.
Separate Opinion 28 G.R. No. 230112 and 230119

the need for petitioner Global Medical Center of Laguna, Inc. to furnish
respondent Ross Systems International, Inc. the pertinent BIR Form 2307.