SPOUSES ROBERTO & EVELYN DAVID and COORDINATED GROUP, INC., petitioners, vs.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION and SPS. NARCISO & AIDA QUIAMBAO, respondents.

DECISION

PUNO, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailin the Decision and Resolution of the Court of !ppeals, dated "une #$, %$$# and !u ust %&, %$$#, respectivel', in C!().R. S* No. &%&#+. *etitioner COORDIN!TED )RO,*, INC. -C)I. is a corporation en a ed in the construction /usiness, with petitioner(spouses RO0ERTO and E1E23N D!1ID as its *resident and Treasurer, respectivel'. The records reveal that on Octo/er &, 455&, respondent(spouses N!RCISO and !ID! 6,I!70!O en a ed the services of petitioner C)I to desi n and construct a five(store' concrete office8residential /uildin on their land in Tondo, 7anila. The Desi n80uild Contract of the parties provided that9 -a. petitioner C)I shall prepare the wor:in drawin s for the construction pro;ect< -/. respondents shall pa' petitioner C)I the su= of Seven 7illion Three >undred Nine Thousand Ei ht >undred Twent'(One and 5484$$ *esos -*&,#$5,?%4.54. for the construction of the /uildin , includin the costs of la/or, =aterials and e@uip=ent, and Two >undred Thousand *esos -*%$$,$$$.$$. for the cost of the desi n< and -c. the construction of the /uildin shall /e co=pleted within nine -5. =onths after securin the /uildin per=it. The co=pletion of the construction was initiall' scheduled on or /efore "ul' 4+, 455? /ut was eAtended to Nove=/er 45, 455? upon a ree=ent of the parties. It appears, however, that petitioners failed to follow the specifications and plans as previousl' a reed upon. Respondents de=anded the correction of the errors /ut petitioners failed to act on their co=plaint. Conse@uentl', respondents rescinded the contract on Octo/er #4, 455?, after pa'in &4.?4B of the cost of construction. Respondents then en a ed the services of another contractor, RR! and !ssociates, to inspect the pro;ect and assess the actual acco=plish=ent of petitioners in the construction of the /uildin . It was found that petitioners revised and deviated fro= the structural plan of the /uildin without notice to or approval /' the respondents.4 Respondents filed a case for /reach of contract a ainst petitioners /efore the Re ional Trial Court -RTC. of 7anila. !t the pre(trial conference, the parties a reed to su/=it the case for ar/itration to the CONSTR,CTION IND,STR3 !R0ITR!TION CO77ISSION -CI!C.. Respondents filed a re@uest% for ar/itration with the CI!C and no=inated !tt'. Custodio O. *arlade as ar/itrator. !tt'. *arlade was appointed /' the CI!C as sole ar/itrator to resolve the dispute. Cith the a ree=ent of the parties, !tt'. *arlade desi nated En r. 2oreto C. !@uino to assist hi= in assessin the technical aspect of the case. The RTC of 7anila then dis=issed the case and trans=itted its records to the CI!C.#

!fter conductin hearin s and two -%. ocular inspections of the construction site, the ar/itrator rendered ;ud =ent a ainst petitioners, thus9 AWARD In su==ar', award is here/' =ade in favor of the 6uia=/aos a ainst the Respondents, ;ointl' and severall', as follows9 2ost Rentals Cost to Co=plete, Rectification, etc. Da=a es due to erroneous sta:in *rofessional fees for eodetic surve's, etc. 7isc. eApenses8 professional fees of en ineers 0ills for water and electricit', *2DT !ttorne'Ds Eees 7oral Da=a es EAe=plar' Da=a es TOT!2 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( *4,+?$,$$$.$$ %,%?4,$%?.&4 44&,$$$.$$ &%,5$$.$$ 44?,+4%.5$ 45,%4&.+? 4$$,$$$.$$ %5$,$$$.$$ %5$,$$$.$$ *4,??4,44?.?5

There is li:ewise an award in favor of the Respondents -petitioners herein. and a ainst the Clai=ants -respondents herein. for the value of the =aterials and e@uip=ent left at -the. site -in. the a=ount of *%#?,#&%.&5. Respondent C)I is li:ewise credited with an ?$B acco=plish=ent havin a total value of *5,?4&,?5&.%$. !ll other clai=s and counterclai=s are here/' dis=issed for lac: of =erit. To recapitulate9 *a'=ents alread' =ade to C)I !=ount awarded a/ove to Clai=ants Total *a'=ents due C)I for ?$B wor: acco=plish=ent Cost of =aterials and e@uip=ent Total 9 *5,?4&,?5&.%$ %#?,#&%.&5 ( ( *+,$?+,%55.55 ( ( *5,%&5,$44.$$ 4,?+4,44?.?5 4$,455,455.?5

Deductin this a=ount of *+,$?+,%%5.55 fro= *4$,455,455.?5, the result is a net award in favor the Clai=ants of -sic. the a=ount of *4,$&#,%%5.54. C>EREEORE, the Respondents are here/' ordered to pa', ;ointl' and severall', the Clai=ants the a=ount of *4,$&#,%%5.54 with interest at +B per annu= fro= the date of the pro=ul ation of this !ward, and 4%B per annu= of the net award, includin accrued interest, fro= the ti=e it /eco=es final and eAecutor' until it is full' paid. Each part' is here/' directed to pa' to the Co==ission *45,$$$.$$ as such part'Ds share in the eApertDs fees paid to En r. 2oreto C. !@uino. SO ORDERED.4 *etitioners appealed to the Court of !ppeals which affir=ed the ar/itratorDs Decision /ut deleted the award for lost rentals.5 ,nsatisfied, petitioners filed this petition for review on certiorari, raisin the followin issues9 I. T>ERE C!S NO 0!SIS, IN E!CT !ND IN 2!C, TO !22OC RES*ONDENTS TO ,NI2!TER!223 RESCIND T>E DESI)N80,I2T CONTR!CT, !ETER *ETITIONERS >!1E (SIC) S,0ST!NTI!223 *EREOR7ED T>EIR O02I)!TION ,NDER T>E S!ID CONTR!CT. II. T>E >ONOR!02E CO,RT OE !**E!2S ERRED IN EINDIN) *ETITIONERS "OINT23 !ND SE1ER!223 2I!02E CIT> CO(*ETITIONER COORDIN!TED -)RO,*, INC.., IN C2E!R 1IO2!TION OE T>E DOCTRINE OE SE*!R!TE ",RIDIC!2 *ERSON!2IT3. Ce find no =erit in the petition. EAecutive Order No. 4$$? entitled, FConstruction Industr' !r/itration 2awF provided for an ar/itration =echanis= for the speed' resolution of construction disputes other than /' court liti ation. It reco niGed the role of the construction industr' in the countr'Ds econo=ic pro ress as it utiliGes a lar e se =ent of the la/or force and contri/utes su/stantiall' to the ross national product of the countr'.+ Thus, E.O. No. 4$$? vests on the Construction Industr' !r/itration Co==ission -CI!C. ori inal and eAclusive ;urisdiction over disputes arisin fro= or connected with construction contracts entered into /' parties who have a reed to su/=it their case to voluntar' ar/itration. Sect !n "# !$ E.O. N!. "%%& '(!) de* t+at t* a(, t(a- a.a(d *+a-- ,e a''ea-a,-e t! t+e S/'(e0e C!/(t !n-1 !n 2/e*t !n* !$ -a..& There is a 2/e*t !n !$ -a. when the dou/t or difference in a iven case arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts, and there is a 2/e*t !n !$ $act when the dou/t arises as to the truth or falsit' of the alle ed facts.? Thus, for a @uestion to /e one of law, it =ust not involve an eAa=ination of the pro/ative value of the evidence presented /' the parties and there =ust /e no dou/t as to the veracit' or falsehood of the facts alle ed.5 In the case at /ar, it is readil' apparent that 'et t !ne(* a(e (a * n3 2/e*t !n* !$ $act. In their first assi ned error, petitioners clai= that at the ti=e of rescission, the' had co=pleted ?$B of the construction wor: and still have 45 da's to finish the pro;ect. The' li:ewise insist that the' constructed the /uildin in accordance with the contract and an' =odification on the plan was with the consent of the respondents.

These clai=s of petitioners are refuted /' the evidence on record. In holdin that respondents were ;ustified in rescindin the contract, the C!/(t !$ A''ea-* /'+e-d t+e $act/a- $ nd n3* !$ t+e *!-e a(, t(at!(, thus9 AAA 4A5* t+e B/ -d n3 .a* ta6 n3 *+a'e, t+e1 n!t ced de) at !n* $(!0 t+e a''(!)ed '-an* and *'ec $ cat !n* $!( t+e B/ -d n3. M!*t n!t cea,-e .e(e t.! 475 c!nc(ete c!-/0n* n t+e 0 dd-e !$ t+e ,a*e0ent .+ c+ e$$ect )e-1 and 'e(0anent-1 !,*t(/cted t+e ,a*e0ent $!( t+e 'a(6 n3 !$ )e+ c-e* 8 8 8. In add t !n, t+(ee 495 add t !na- c!nc(ete c!-/0n* .e(e c!n*t(/cted $(!0 t+e 3(!/nd $-!!( t! t+e (!!$ dec6 8 8 8 .+ c+ a$$ected t+e !)e(a-- d 0en* !n !$ t+e ,/ -d n3 */c+ a* a-te( n3 t+e *'ec $ ed ,ea0 de't+*, 'a**a3e.a1* and . nd!.*. In addition, 7rs. 6uia=/ao provided a virtual litan' of alle ed defects, to wit9 -a. the 0uildin was not verticall' plu=/ed AAA< -/. provisions for =an' architectural =e=/ers were not provided for, such as, -i. the recesses for window plant /oAes are lac:in AAA, -ii. provisions for precast =oldin are lac:in AAA, -iii. canopies are also lac:in A A A< -c. =isali ned walls, u l' discrepancies and aps< -d. s:ewed walls to floors8landin s< -e. low head clearances and truncated /ea=s A A A< -f. narrow and disproportionate stairs AAA one -4. instead of two -%. windows at the fire eAit A A A, - . a/sence of water(proofin alon the /ase=ent wall A A A and at the roof dec: which caused lea:s that da=a es the =eGGanine floor A A A< -h. the use of s=aller dia onal steel trusses at the penthouse. A A A There were others which were shown durin the site inspection such as9 -4. 2(shaped :itchen counters instead of the re@uired ,(shaped counters A A A< -%. failure to provide =ar/le tops for the :itchen counters< -#. installation of sin le(tu/ sin:s where the plans called for dou/le( t'pe stainless :itchen sin:s A A A< -4. installation of =uch s=aller windows than those re@uired< -5. =isali ned window ease=ents to wall, -+. floors were da=a ed /' roof lea:s, -+. poor floor finish, =isali ned tiles, floors with F:apa:F and disproportionate drawers and ca/inets. ! =ore co=prehensive list of alle ed defects, deviations and co=plaints of the 6uia=/aos is found in a report =ar:ed EAhi/it C(444. Man1 !$ t+e*e de$ect* .e(e *een d/( n3 t+e * te n*'ect !n and t+e !n-1 de$en*e and c!00ent !$ CGI .a* t+at t+e*e .e(e '/nc+:- *t te0* .+ c+ c!/-d +a)e ,een c!((ected '( !( t! c!0'-et !n and t/(n:!)e( !$ t+e B/ -d n3 +ad t+e C!nt(act n!t ,een te(0 nated ,1 t+e C-a 0ant* -respondents here.. A A A Thus, A A A -petitioner. C)I ar ued that9 "In any construction work, before a contractor turns-over the project to the owner, punchlisting of defects is done so as to ensure co pliance and satisfaction of both the contractor and the owner! "unch listing eans that the contractor will list all ajor and inor defects and rectifies the before the turnover of the project to the owner! #fter all defects had been arranged, the project is now turned over to the owner! $or this particular project, no turn over was ade by the contractor to the owner yet! #ctually, we were already pinpointing these defects for punch listing before we were ter inated illegally! #s alleged by the owner, the deficiencies entioned are stubouts of water closets at toilets, roofing and fra ing, doors, cabinets, ceiling and stairs and other were not yet co pleted and rectified by us! In fact we were counting on our project engineer in charge % % % to do this in as uch as this is one of his duties to do for the co pany! % % %" Confir=ator' of this assertion of C)I that it was willin to underta:e the appropriate corrective wor:s -whether or not the ite=s are punch(list ite=s. is EAhi/it C(?? which is a letter prepared /' C)IDs Cindell E. 1iGconde, chec:ed /' C)IDs )ar' 7. )arcia and noted /' C)IDs 0en;ie 2ipardo, addressed to the 6uia=/aos which stated that9

"#s per our discussion during the last eeting dated Sept! &', ())' the following ite s was (sic) confir ed and clarified! *hese are described as follows+ "(! #ll ceiling cornices shall be installed as per plan specification which is (" % ," in si-e! "&! #ll baseboards shall be installed as per plan specification which is wood (" % ," in si-e! ".! /lectrical 0eter center and location! ain panel breaker should be retained to its present

",! /levation of office, dining and stair lobby of ground floor shall be ," higher than the elevation of parking area (subject for verification)! "1! #ll door ja bs at C!2! has (sic) to be replaced with concrete fra ing ja bs! "3! #ll ceilings ailers should be & % & in si-e!

"4! #ll plywood ceiling that was da aged by rain water shall be replaced! "'! "rovide a pipe chase for the enclosure of soil stack pipe and water line pipe at the ground floor level between grid line .-, along the light well area! ")! $ront side elevation view shall be follow (sic) as per plan specialy (sic) at , th flr! "(5! 6ne colu n at base ent floor along grid line &7 8 has to be verified by the structural designer if ever it is safe to re oved (sic) the colu n and what will be their (sic) reco endation to support the load! "((! /%isting doors 9-& and 9-. shall be replaced a (sic) new one!" Chile 7rs. 6uia=/ao appeared not to have iven her confor=it', t+ * d!c/0ent $(!0 CGI * an ad0 ** !n ,1 CGI !$ t+e de$ c enc e* n t+e c!n*t(/ct !n !$ t+e B/ -d n3 .+ c+ needed t! ,e c!((ected. It a''ea(* t+at c!nc(ete *a0'-e* ta6en $(!0 t+e ,a*e0ent, 3(!/nd $-!!(, 0e;;an ne and 7nd $-!!( !$ t+e B/ -d n3 .e(e */,<ected t! a c!nc(ete c!(e te*t ,1 Ge!te*t n3 Inte(nat !na-, Inc., 3e!tec+n ca- and 0ate( a-* te*t n3 en3 nee(*. ! report dated "anuar' %$, 4555 A A A showed A A A that -5. *a0'-e* 8 8 8 $a -ed t+e te*t. Sa=ple S% while it showed a co=prehensive stren th of #44& psi, the corrective stren th in psi was /elow the specified co=prehensive stren th of #$$$ psi. C)I failed to produce evidence of si=ilar tests durin the construction of the 0uildin althou h it is nor=al construction practice for the contractor to provide sa=ples for concrete core tests. De$!(0ed (e n$!(c n3 *tee- ,a( *'ec 0en* $(!0 t+e ,/ -d n3 .e(e */,<ected t! '+1* ca- te*t*. These tests were conducted at the 7aterials Testin 2a/orator' of the Depart=ent of Civil En ineerin , Colle e of En ineerin , ,niversit' of the *hilippines. A A A There were 4? sa=ples and A A A & $a -ed t+e te*t althou h all of the= passed the cold /end test. A A A C)I su/=itted 6ualit' Test Certificates issued

/' Steel !sia certif'in to the =echanical test results and che=ical co=position of the steel =aterials tested A A A. >owever, the sa=ples were provided /' the =anufacturer, not /' C)I, to Steel !sia, and there is no showin that the =aterials supplied /' the =anufacturer to C)I for the 0uildin for=ed part of the steel =aterials, part of which was tested. AAA Re3a(d n3 t+e add t !na- c!-/0n* at t+e ,a*e0ent and at t+e $ (*t $-!!( t! t+e (!!$ dec6 !$ t+e B/ -d n3, .+ c+ e$$ect )e-1 (e*t( cted t+e /*e !$ t+e ,a*e0ent a* a 'a(6 n3 a(ea, and - 6e. *e (ed/ced t+e a(ea .+ c+ c!/-d ,e /*ed ,1 t+e Q/ a0,a!* n t+e d $$e(ent $-!!(* !$ t+e B/ -d n3, En3(. R!,e(t! =. Da) d ad0 tted t+at t+e*e (e'(e*ented a de* 3n c+an3e .+ c+ .a* 0ade and 0'-e0ented ,1 CGI . t+!/t t+e c!n$!(0n t1 !$ t+e C-a 0ant*. The Contract specificall' provided in !rticle II that "the C6:*2#C*62 shall sub it to the 6;:/2 all designs for the 6;:/2<S approval!" This i=plies necessaril' that all chan es in the approved desi n shall li:ewise /e su/=itted to the OCNER for approval. T+ * c+an3e, n 01 ) e., * t+e * n3-e 0!*t *e( !/* ,(eac+ !$ t+e C!nt(act c!00 tted ,1 CGI .+ c+ </*t $ ed t+e dec * !n !$ t+e C-a 0ant* t! te(0 nate t+e C!nt(act. A A A -T.here is no evidence to show that the 6uia=/aos approved the revision of the structural plans to provide for the construction of the additional colu=ns. A A A A A A En r. 1illasenor defended his structural desi n as ade@uate. >e ad=itted that t+e (e) * !n !$ t+e '-an* .+ c+ (e*/-ted n t+e c!n*t(/ct !n !$ add t !nac!-/0n* .a* n '/(*/ance !$ t+e (e2/e*t !$ En3(. Da) d t! (e) *e t+e *t(/ct/(a- '-an* t! '(!) de $!( a * 3n $ cant (ed/ct !n !$ t+e c!*t !$ c!n*t(/ct !n. W+en En3(. Da) d .a* a*6ed $!( t+e </*t $ cat !n $!( t+e (e) * !n $!( t+e '-an*, +e c!n$ (0ed t+at +e .anted t! (ed/ce t+e c!*t !$ c!n*t(/ct !n. In an1 ca*e, .+et+e( t+e ca/*e !$ (e) * !n !$ t+e '-an* .a* t+e /nde(:de* 3n !$ t+e $!/ndat !n !( $!( (ea*!n* !$ ec!n!01, t * CGI .+ c+ * at $a/-t. CGI '(e'a(ed t+e *t(/ct/(a- '-an* and 2/!ted t+e '( ce $!( c!n*t(/ct n3 t+e B/ -d n3. T+e Q/ a0,a!* acce'ted ,!t+ t+e '-an* and t+e '( ce. I$ CGI 0ade a 0 *ta6e n de* 3n n3 t+e $!/ndat !n !( n e*t 0at n3 t+e c!*t !$ c!n*t(/ct !n, t .a* at $a/-t. It cann!t c!((ect t+at 0 *ta6e ,1 (e) * n3 t+e '-an* and 0'-e0ent n3 t+e (e) * !n* . t+!/t n$!(0 n3 t+e Q/ a0,a!* and !,ta n n3 t+e ( /ne2/ )!ca- a''(!)a- !$ */c+ c+an3e*. In addition, C)I ad=itted that no relocation surve' was =ade /' it prior to the construction of the 0uildin . Conse@uentl', a one(=eter portion of the 0uildin was constructed /e'ond the propert' line. In ;ustification, En r. 0ar/a 1. Santos declared that C)I =ade the la'out of the proposed structure /ased on the eAistin fence. A A A -I.t is understood that a contractor, in constructin a /uildin , =ust first conduct a relocation surve' /efore construction precisel' to avoid the situation which developed here, that the 0uildin was not properl' constructed within the ownerDs propert' line. A A A This resulted in the under(utiliGation of the propert', s=all as it is, and the eAposure of the 6uia=/aos to su/stantial da=a es to the owner of the ad;oinin propert' encroached upon. A t+ (d 0a<!( c!nte*ted **/e c!nce(ned t+e c!n*t(/ct !n !$ t+e c *te(n. A A A A c *te(n * an /nde(3(!/nd tan6 /*ed t! c!--ect .ate( $!( d( n6 n3 '/('!*e*. The contentious points re ardin the construction of the cistern are9 first, that t+e

c *te(n .a* de* 3ned t! acc/0/-ate /' t! "%,%%% 3a--!n* !$ .ate(> a* c!n*t(/cted, t* ca'ac t1 .a* -e** t+an t+e de* 3n ca'ac t1. Sec!nd, t+e(e * n! nte(na- 'a(t t !n *e'a(at n3 t+e c *te(n $(!0 t+e */0' ' t. A A A C!n* de( n3 t+at t+e c *te(n * a (ece'tac-e $!( t+e c!--ect !n !$ d( n6 n3 .ate(, t * nc!0'(e+en* ,-e .+1 t+e Re*'!ndent* 4+e(e n 'et t !ne(*5, n t+e de* 3n and c!n*t(/ct !n !$ t+e c *te(n, +a* (sic) n!t ta6en t+e nece**a(1 0ea*/(e* t! 0a6e ce(ta n t+at t+e .ate( n t+e c *te(n . -- ,e $(ee $(!0 c!nta0 nat !n. A A A Thus, rantin the ar u=ents of the Respondents -herein petitioners. that the o/served defects in the 0uildin could /e corrected /efore turn(over and acceptance of the 0uildin if C)I had /een allowed to co=plete its construction, the c!n*t(/ct !n !$ add t !na- c!-/0n*, t+e c!n*t(/ct !n !$ t+e B/ -d n3 */c+ t+at 'a(t !$ t * !/t* de t+e '(!'e(t1 - ne e*ta,- *+ed a */$$ c ent -e3a- and $act/a,a* * $!( t+e dec * !n !$ t+e Q/ a0,a!* t! te(0 nate t+e C!nt(act. T+e $act t+at $ )e 4?5 !$ n ne 4#5 t+e (sic) c!nc(ete *a0'-e* */,<ected t! a c!(e te*t, and e 3+t 4&5 !$ e 3+teen 4"&5 de$!(0ed (e n$!(c n3 *tee- ,a( *'ec $ c* */,<ected t! '+1* ca- te*t* $a -ed t+e te*t* and t+e /nde(:de* 3n !$ t+e c *te(n .a* e*ta,- *+ed a$te( t+e C!nt(act .a* te(0 nated a-*! *e()ed t! c!n$ (0 t+e </*t $ ed */*' c !n !$ t+e Q/ a0,a!* t+at t+e B/ -d n3 .a* de$ect )e !( .a* n!t c!n*t(/cted acc!(d n3 t! a''(!)ed '-an* and *'ec $ cat !n*.4$ -e phases supplied. These are technical findin s of fact =ade /' eApert witnesses and affir=ed /' the ar/itrator. The' were also affir=ed /' the Court of !ppeals. Ce find no reason to revise the=. T+e *ec!nd a** 3ned e((!( - 6e. *e n)!-)e* a 2/e*t !n !$ $act. It is contended that petitioner( spouses David cannot /e held ;ointl' and severall' lia/le with petitioner C)I in the pa'=ent of the ar/itral award as the' are =erel' its corporate officers. !t first lance, the issue =a' appear to /e a @uestion of law as it would call for application of the law on the separate lia/ilit' of a corporation. >owever, the law can /e applied onl' after esta/lishin a factual /asis, i!e!, whether petitioner(spouses as corporate officers were rossl' ne li ent in orderin the revisions on the construction plan without the :nowled e and consent of the respondent(spouses. On this issue, the C!/(t !$ A''ea-* a3a n a$$ (0ed t+e $act/a- $ nd n3* !$ t+e a(, t(at!(, thus9 !s a eneral rule, the officers of a corporation are not personall' lia/le for their official acts unless it is shown that the' have eAceeded their authorit'. >owever, t+e 'e(*!na- - a, - t1 !$ a c!('!(ate d (ect!(, t(/*tee !( !$$ ce(, a-!n3 . t+ c!('!(at !n, 0a1 *! )a- d-1 attac+ .+en +e a**ent* t! a 'atent-1 /n-a.$/- act !$ t+e c!('!(at !n !( $!( ,ad $a t+ !( 3(!** ne3- 3ence n d (ect n3 t* a$$a (*. The followin findin s of pu/lic respondent -CI!C. would support its rulin in holdin petitioners severall' and ;ointl' lia/le with the Corporation9 F A A A Chen as:ed whether the 0uildin was underdesi ned considerin the poor @ualit' of the soil, En r. 1illasenor defended his structural desi n as ade@uate. >e ad=itted that t+e (e) * !n !$ t+e '-an* .+ c+ (e*/-ted n t+e c!n*t(/ct !n !$ add t !na- c!-/0n* .a* n '/(*/ance !$ t+e (e2/e*t !$ En3(. Da) d t! (e) *e t+e *t(/ct/(a- '-an* t! '(!) de $!( a * 3n $ cant (ed/ct !n !$ t+e c!*t !$ c!n*t(/ct !n. W+en En3(. Da) d .a* a*6ed $!(

t+e </*t $ cat !n $!( t+e (e) * !n !$ t+e '-an*, +e c!n$ (0ed t+at +e .anted t! (ed/ce t+e c!*t !$ c!n*t(/ct !n. A A AF (e phases supplied)44 Clearl', the case at /ar does not raise an' enuine issue of law. Ce reiterate the rule that factual findin s of construction ar/itrators are final and conclusive and not reviewa/le /' this Court on appeal, eAcept when the petitioner proves affir=ativel' that9 -4. the award was procured /' corruption, fraud or other undue =eans< -%. there was evident partialit' or corruption of the ar/itrators or of an' of the=< -#. the ar/itrators were uilt' of =isconduct in refusin to postpone the hearin upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusin to hear evidence pertinent and =aterial to the controvers'< -4. one or =ore of the ar/itrators were dis@ualified to act as such under section nine of Repu/lic !ct No. ?&+ and willfull' refrained fro= disclosin such dis@ualifications or of an' other =is/ehavior /' which the ri hts of an' part' have /een =ateriall' pre;udiced< or -5. the ar/itrators eAceeded their powers, or so i=perfectl' eAecuted the=, that a =utual, final and definite award upon the su/;ect =atter su/=itted to the= was not =ade.4% Pet t !ne(* $a -ed t! *+!. t+at an1 !$ t+e*e e8ce't !n* a''- e* t! t+e ca*e at ,a(. Einall', it /ears to re=ind petitioners of this CourtDs rulin in the 455# case of @ :P(ec * !n SteeCente(, Inc. )*. L 0 A 0 Stee- B/ -de(*, Inc.4# which e=phasiGed the rationale for li=itin appeal to le al @uestions in construction cases resolved throu h ar/itration, thus9 A A A Consideration of the ani=atin purpose of voluntar' ar/itration in eneral, and ar/itration under the ae is of the CI!C in particular, re@uires us to appl' ri orousl' the a/ove principle e=/odied in Section 45 that the !r/itral Tri/unalDs findin s of fact shall /e final and inappeala/le (sic). 1oluntar' ar/itration involves the reference of a dispute to an i=partial /od', the =e=/ers of which are chosen /' the parties the=selves, which parties freel' consent in advance to a/ide /' the ar/itral award issued after proceedin s where /oth parties had the opportunit' to /e heard. T+e ,a* c !,<ect )e * t! '(!) de a *'eed1 and ne8'en* )e 0et+!d !$ *ett- n3 d *'/te* ,1 a--!. n3 t+e 'a(t e* t! a)! d t+e $!(0a- t e*, de-a1, e8'en*e and a33(a)at !n .+ c+ c!00!n-1 acc!0'an1 !(d na(1 - t 3at !n, e*'ec a--1 - t 3at !n .+ c+ 3!e* t+(!/3+ t+e ent (e + e(a(c+1 !$ c!/(t*. EAecutive Order No. 4$$? created an ar/itration facilit' to which the construction industr' in the *hilippines can have recourse. The EAecutive Order was enacted to encoura e the earl' and eApeditious settle=ent of disputes in the construction industr', a pu/lic polic' the i=ple=entation of which is necessar' and i=portant for the realiGation of the national develop=ent oals. !ware of the o/;ective of voluntar' ar/itration in the la/or field, in the construction industr', and in other area for that =atter, the Court will not assist one or the other or even /oth parties in an' effort to su/vert or defeat that o/;ective for their private purposes. The Court will not review the factual findin s of an ar/itral tri/unal upon the artful alle ation that such /od' had F=isapprehended factsF and will not pass upon issues which are, at /otto=, issues of fact, no =atter how cleverl' dis uised the' =i ht /e as Fle al @uestions.F The parties here had recourse to ar/itration and chose the ar/itrators the=selves< the' =ust have had confidence in such ar/itrators. T+e C!/(t . -- n!t, t+e(e$!(e, 'e(0 t t+e 'a(t e* t! (e- t 3ate ,e$!(e t t+e **/e* !$ $act* '(e) !/*-1 '(e*ented and a(3/ed ,e$!(e t+e A(, t(a- T( ,/na-, *a)e !n-1 .+e(e a c-ea( *+!. n3 * 0ade t+at, n (eac+ n3 t* $act/a- c!nc-/* !n*, t+e A(, t(a- T( ,/na- c!00 tted an e((!( *! e3(e3 !/* and +/(t$/- t! !ne 'a(t1 a* t! c!n*t t/te a 3(a)e a,/*e !$ d *c(et !n (e*/-t n3 n -ac6 !( -!** !$ </( *d ct !n. *rotot'pical eAa=ples would /e factual conclusions of the Tri/unal

which resulted in deprivation of one or the other part' of a fair opportunit' to present its position /efore the !r/itral Tri/unal, and an award o/tained throu h fraud or the corruption of ar/itrators. !n' other =ore relaAed rule would result in settin at nau ht the /asic o/;ective of a voluntar' ar/itration and would reduce ar/itration to a lar el' inutile institution. -e phases supplied. IN VIEW W@EREOB, the petition is DIS7ISSED for lac: of =erit. Costs a ainst petitioners.