Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, the Tribunal hereby decides and awards in full and final disposition of this arbitration, as follows: (a) The Tribunals [sic] declares valid the termination of the Memorandum of Agreement dated [June 30, 2014] between Claimant [Roxaco] and Gulf Canary; (b) The Tribunal declares that the Performance Bond issued by Asia United in favor of Claimant [Roxaco] was valid and subsisting at the time Claimant [Roxaco] served its notice of claim on the Performance Bond; (c) The Tribunal orders G…
WHEREFORE, the Tribunal hereby decides and awards in full and final disposition of this arbitration, as follows: (a) The Tribunals [sic] declares valid the termination of the Memorandum of Agreement dated [June 30, 2014] between Claimant [Roxaco] and Gulf Canary; (b) The Tribunal declares that the Performance Bond issued by Asia United in favor of Claimant [Roxaco] was valid and subsisting at the time Claimant [Roxaco] served its notice of claim on the Performance Bond; (c) The Tribunal orders Gulf Canary to pay Claimant [Roxaco] the following amounts: (i) [PHP] 14,305,098.96 as and for liquidated damages; (ii) [PHP] 29,701,532.37 for recoupment of the down payment; (iii) [PHP] 16,964,878.38 for cost of rectification; (iv) Interest on each of the amounts stated in (i) to (ii) at the rate of 6% per annum from [September 22, 2017] until fully paid; (v) [PHP] 2,500,000.00 as and for attorney's fees; (vi) The costs of arbitration; and (vii) Claimant's claim for cost of completion of the Project is hereby denied. (d) The Tribunal declares and holds, Asia United jointly and severally liable with Gulf Canary in respect of items (i) and (vi) above up to the amount of the Performance Bond which is [PHP] 65,946,811.06. (e) The Tribunal denies the counterclaims of Gulf Canary and Asia United for lack of merit. (f) All other claims and reliefs not specifically resolved by this Final Award are deemed denied for lack of merit. [38] Crucial to the CIAC Tribunal's ruling was its factual finding that the contractual completion date was not extended from March 31, 2015 to January 31, 2016. According to the CIAC Tribunal, there was no evidence proving that Gulf Canary complied with the specific conditions, provided in the Construction Contracts, for a valid extension of the completion date. Further, the CIAC Tribunal ruled that Gulf Canary was liable for the delays in the construction. Given this, Roxaco was justified in ultimately terminating the Construction Contracts and demanding the payment of liquidated damages. [39] The CIAC Tribunal also concluded that Roxaco is entitled to the recoupment of its downpayment in accordance with the FIDIC Contract. The CIAC Tribunal found that the downpayment functioned as an "interest free loan which must be repaid through percentage deductions in the Payment Certificates during the Project." [40] Finally, the CIAC agreed with Roxaco that Gulf Canary should pay the rectification costs which Roxaco incurred to remediate Gulf Canary's defective and substandard work. [41] In determining the amounts for which Gulf Canary and Asia United should be held liable, the CIAC Tribunal based its award on the evidence presented during the arbitration proceedings. The Ruling of the CA Gulf Canary and Asia United filed separate Rule 43 petitions for review under the Rules of Court, before the CA. [42] The CA granted the petitions, reversed the Final Award, and ordered the dismissal of Roxaco's complaint in the CIAC. [43] The dispositive port