G.R. No. 267541 - GRAND EXPLOIT BUILDER DEVELOPMENT, INC., VS. HOEGAARDEN REALTY CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Court GRANTS the Petition. The Final Award in CIAC Case No. 54-2022 is hereby VACATED and VOIDED on the ground of evident partiality. Petitioner Hoegaarden is DEEMED to have paid the amounts below for the downpayment, billings on the original contracts , and other charges and fees, and entitled to the following deductibles, as discussed in Our Decision: For HOKKA I, [PHP] 289,667,201.40 , constituting payments on the downpayment and billings made, from 17 September 2019 to 17 July 2021, including an additional floor (Billing dated 27 May 2022) and additional electrical items (the "Meralco" billing) and entitled to a deductible of [PHP] 19,072,226.64 ; For Hokka II, [PHP] 304,722,111.10 , constituting payments on the downpayment and billings from 19 January 2020 to 11 June 2022, and entitled to a deductible amount of [PHP] 33,012,979.00 ; For Hokka III, [PHP] 562,478,797.21 , for the downpayment, billings, and additional items; and [PHP] 122,576,934.00 , advanced by Hoegaarden for permit fees, interest, and other miscellaneous fees, arising from the parties' MOA. Meanwhile, We remand the issues below to the CIAC for, for rehearing by arbitrators that the public respondents here , including due proceedings thereon, i.e., the presentation of witnesses, their examination, cross-examination; the offer of an admission of evidence, subject to the discretion of the hearing arbitrators; and resolution, after considering all the parties' evidence, with due regard to the freedom from technicalities the CIAC Rules of Procedure declares. The remand encompasses only the following unresolved matters, which properly lie within the primary expertise of the CIAC: Issue No. 3, or "What is the percentage of the Work completed by the Respondent in Contract No. 1, Contract No. 2, and Contract No. 3 and how much is the value of each of such work accomplished;" Issue No. 4, or "Whether Claimant overpaid the Respondent for work accomplishment under each Contract; if so, how much overpayment was made for Contract No. 1, Contract No. 2, and Contract No. 3?" Issue No. 4(a), or "Is Claimant entitled to the return of such excess payments for Contract No. 1, Contract No. 2, and Contract No. 3?" Issue No. 4(b) or "On the other hand, is Respondent entitled to unpaid billings for construction works done for Contract No. 1, Contract No. 2, and Contract No. 3," but strictly with respect only to the issue of whether or not there has been unpaid additional work, i.e., contract changes and deviations from the original designs; Issue No. 5, or "Were there authorized changes in the Work under each Contract; if so, what are these changes in Contract No. 1, Contract No. 2, and Contract No. 3;" and How the costs of arbitration shall be distributed between the parties. As stressed in Our Decision, as the CIAC hears the case on remand, the CIAC must keep in mind that with Our disposition here, Hoegaarden has already paid in full the downpayment for each p