G.R. Nos. 132848-49 - PHILROCK, INC., VS. CONSTRUCTION

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered DENYING the petitions and, accordingly, AFFIRMING in toto the CIACs decision. Costs against petitioner. [2] The assailed Resolution ruled in this wise: Considering that the matters raised and discussed in the motion for reconsideration filed by appellants counsel are substantially the same arguments which the Court had passed upon and resolved in the decision sought to be reconsidered, and there being no new issue raised, the subject motion is hereby DENIED . [3] The Facts The undisputed facts of the consolidated cases are summarized by the CA as follows: "On September 14, 1992, the Cid spouses, herein private respondents, filed a Complaint for damages against Philrock and seven of its officers and engineers with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 82. On December 7, 1993, the initial trial date, the trial court issued an Order dismissing the case and referring the same to the CIAC because the Cid spouses and Philrock had filed an Agreement to Arbitrate with the CIAC. Thereafter, preliminary conferences were held among the parties and their appointed arbitrators. At these conferences, disagreements arose as to whether moral and exemplary damages and tort should be included as an issue along with breach of contract, and whether the seven officers and engineers of Philrock who are not parties to the Agreement to Arbitrate should be included in the arbitration proceedings. No common ground could be reached by the parties, hence, on April 2, 1994, both the Cid spouses and Philrock requested that the case be remanded to the trial court. On April 13, 1994, the CIAC issued an Order stating, thus: 'x x x the Arbitral Tribunal hereby formally dismisses the above-captioned case for referral to Branch 82 of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City where it first originated. SO ORDERED.