G.R. No. 152545 - R-II BUILDERS, INC., VS. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION COMMISSION (CIAC) AND MIVAN BUILDERS, INC..G.R. NO. 165687 R-II BUILDERS, INC., VS. MIVAN BUILDERS, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, TECHPHIL recommended that R-II be made to pay the amount of P 40,719,802.41. R-II proved, however, to be unyielding. This impelled Mivan to pursue its claims before the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) pursuant to par. 14. 1, Article XIV of the sub-contract agreement. [10] The case was docketed as CIAC Case No. 22-99. On November 12, 1999, the CIAC-appointed Sole Arbitrator Alfredo F. Tadiar rendered a decision in CIAC Case No. 22-99, as follows: A W A R D WHEREFORE , Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the claimant Contractor [Mivan] and Award is hereby made on its monetary claims as follows: Respondent [R-II] is directed to pay the Claimant the following amounts: P 39,000,000.00 for its variation claims. 3,198,170.00 for the increased costs of labor, materials and equipment arising from the accelerated schedule of turn-over of 5 buildings. 3,099,089.76 for reimbursement of the amount overcharged for the additional labor force supplied by the Respondent. 747,585.82 for escalation claims. 4,294,575.58 ____________ for Value Added Tax (VAT) computed at 10% of the amounts awarded except that for reimbursement. P 50,339,421.16 Total amount due to the Claimant. Interest on the foregoing amount of P 46,044,845.58, excluding the Value Added Tax, shall be paid at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this Decision. After finality of this Decision, interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall be paid thereon until full payment of the awarded amount shall have been made, "this interim period being deemed to be at that time already a forbearance of credit" (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al, 243 SCRA 78 [1994]; Keng Hua Papers Products Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 257 [1998]; Crismina Garments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128721, March 9, 1999). SO ORDERED . (Words in bracket added.) In time, R-II went to the Court of Appeals (CA) on a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, thereat docketed as CA G.R. No. SP No. 56142 . Mivan also interposed a similar recourse only to withdraw the same later with the appellate court's approval. On October 26, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision [11] dispositively stating: WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED . The assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in toto and the application for injunctive relief denied. SO ORDERED.