G.R. No. 127275 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, WILLIAM GOLANGCO CONSTRUCTION CORP., CHAIRMAN ERNESTO S. DE CASTRO, AND MEMBERS LAURO M. CRUZ AND VICTOR P. LAZATIN OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION COMMISSION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme

Ruling

accordingly disposed as follows: After summing up the award to both parties this TRIBUNAL hereby awards the amount of THREE MILLION NINE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY[-]ONE PESOS AND SIXTEEN CENTAVOS (P3,964,671.16) to CLAIMANT Philippine Commercial Industrial Bank. Respondent William Golangco Construction is hereby ordered to pay the stated amount with legal interest of six (6%) percent from date of this decision until fully paid . [2] PCIB filed on June 28, 1996 a Motion for Partial Reconsideration [3] of the CIAC Decision which is not allowed under Section 9, Article XV of the CIAC Rules of Procedure. It subsequently filed on July 12, 1996 before the CA a petition for "Certiorari and/or Partial Review" [4] which "may be treated as an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court or as a petition for review under Circular 1-95 of the Supreme Court," alleging that the CIAC acted in excess of its jurisdiction and contrary to law in awarding, without basis, an amount in favor of WGCC. To PCIB's petition filed before the CA WGCC filed a Motion to Dismiss with Motion to Cite PCIB Counsel for Contempt [5] on the ground that it was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period for filing an appeal, in support of which it alleged that, contrary to the allegation of counsel for PCIB that he acquired actual knowledge of the CIAC decision on June 28, 1996, PCIB actually received a copy thereof on June 24, 1996 , hence, it had only until July 9, 1996 within which to file before the CA a petition for review. Since PCIB filed before the CA its petition for "Certiorari and/or Partial Review" on July 12, 1996 , WGCC concluded that it was late by 3 days. WGCC attached to its motion a certified photocopy [6] of the pertinent entry in the CIAC logbook showing that Engineer Bong Nuno received a copy of the decision for PCIB on June 24, 1996. By its assailed Resolution, [7] the CA granted WGCC's Motion to Dismiss PCIB's petition upon a finding that indeed PCIB received a copy of the CIAC decision on June 24, 1996 and, therefore, its petition was belatedly filed. On the nature of the petition, the CA held that an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 and a petition for review under Circular 1-95 of the Supreme Court cannot be the subject of a single pleading. PCIB's Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by the CA, it comes to this Court by the present petition for Certiorari and Mandamus upon the following grounds: I THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TO THE GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE PETITIONER AND FAILED OR UNLAWFULLY NEGLECTED TO DO AN ACT WHICH THE LAW ENJOINS IT TO DO WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION IN CA G.R. SP NO. 41227 . II THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TO THE GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE AND INJURY TO THE PETITIONER AND FAILED OR UNLAWFULLY NEGLECTED TO DO AN ACT WHICH THE LAW ENJOINS IT TO DO WHEN IT REFUSED TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER'S ALTERNATIVE RELIEFS FOR RE