G.R. No. 180640 - HUTAMA-RSEA JOINT OPERATIONS, INC., VS. CITRA METRO MANILA TOLLWAYS CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly collected. After informing respondent that the construction of the Skyway Project was already complete, petitioner reiterated its demand that respondent pay the outstanding balance on the interim billings, as well as the "Early Completion Bonus" agreed upon in the EPCC. Respondent refused to comply with petitioner's demands. [6] On 24 May 2004, petitioner, through counsel, sent a letter to respondent demanding payment of the following: (1) the outstanding balance on the interim billings; (2) the amount of petitioner's final billing; (3) early completion bonus; and (4) interest charges on the delayed payment. Thereafter, petitioner and respondent, through their respective officers and representatives, held several meetings to discuss the possibility of amicably settling the dispute. Despite several meetings and continuous negotiations, lasting for a period of almost one year, petitioner and respondent failed to reach an amicable settlement. [7] Petitioner finally filed with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) a Request for Arbitration, seeking to enforce its money claims against respondent. [8] Petitioner's Request was docketed as CIAC Case No. 17-2005. In its Answer ad cautelam with Motion to Dismiss, respondent averred that the CIAC had no jurisdiction over CIAC Case No. 17-2005. Respondent argued that the filing by petitioner of said case was premature because a condition precedent, i.e., prior referral by the parties of their dispute to the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB), required by Clause 20.4 of the EPCC, had not been satisfied or complied with. Respondent asked the CIAC to dismiss petitioner's Request for Arbitration in CIAC Case No. 17-2005 and to direct the parties to comply first with Clause 20.4 of the EPCC. [9] After submission by the parties of the necessary pleadings on the matter of jurisdiction, the CIAC issued on 30 August 2005, an Order in CIAC Case No. 17-2005, favoring petitioner. The CIAC ruled that it had jurisdiction over CIAC Case No. 17-2005, and that the determination of whether petitioner had complied with Clause 20.4 of the EPCC was a factual issue that may be resolved during the trial. It then ordered respondent to file an Answer to petitioner's Request for Arbitration. [10] After respondent and petitioner filed an Answer and a Reply, respectively, in CIAC Case No. 17-2005, the CIAC conducted a preliminary conference, wherein petitioner and respondent signed the "Terms of Reference" outlining the issues to be resolved, viz : (1) Is prior resort to the DAB a precondition to submission of the dispute to arbitration considering that the DAB was not constituted?; (2) Is [herein petitioner] entitled to the balance of the principal amount of the contract? If so, how much?; (3) Is [petitioner] entitled to the early compensation bonus net of VAT due thereon? If so, how much?; (4) Was there delay in the completion of the project? If so, is [herein respondent] entitled to its counterclaim for l