G.R. No. 169095 - HEUNGHWA INDUSTRY CO., LTD.,VS. DJ BUILDERS CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, there is no compelling reason for this Court to deviate from the rule that a denial of a motion to dismiss, absent a showing of lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess jurisdiction, being an interlocutory order, is not the proper subject of a petition for certiorari . Anent the second assigned error, the Court notes that the reliance of the CA on NIA is inaccurate. In NIA, [58] this Court observed: Moreover, it is undeniable that NIA agreed to submit the dispute for arbitration to the CIAC. NIA through its counsel actively participated in the arbitration proceedings by filing an answer with counterclaim, as well as its compliance wherein it nominated arbitrators to the proposed panel, participating in the deliberations on, and the formulation of the Terms of Reference of the arbitration proceeding, and examining the documents submitted by HYDRO after NIA asked for originals of the said documents." [59] In the case at bar, the only participation that can be attributed to petitioner is the joint referral of specific issues to the CIAC and the manifestation praying that additional matters be referred to the CIAC. Both acts, however, have been disputed by petitioner because said acts were performed by their lawyer who was not authorized to submit the case for arbitration. And even if these were duly authorized, this would still not change the correct finding of the CA that the CIAC had jurisdiction over the dispute because, as has been earlier stressed, the arbitration clause in the subcontract agreement ipso facto vested the CIAC with jurisdiction. In passing, even the RTC in its Resolution recognized the authority of the CIAC to hear the case, to wit: Courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. And undoubtedly in this case, the CIAC it cannot be denied, is that administrative tribunal . [60] (Emphasis supplied) It puzzles this Court why petitioner would insist that the RTC should hear the case when the CIAC has the required skill and expertise in addressing construction disputes. Records will bear out the fact that petitioner refused to and did not participate in the CIAC proceedings. In its defense, petitioner cited jurisprudence to the effect that active participation before a quasi-judicial body would be tantamount to an invocation of the latter bodies' jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case. [61] Pursuant to such doctrine, petitioner argued that had it participated in the CIAC proceedings, it would have been barred from impugning the jurisdiction of the CIAC. Petitioner cannot presume that it would have been estopped from questioning the jurisdictio