Hanjin Heavy Industries

Construction Corp

and

Construction

Co,

Ltd

v.

Dynamic

Planners

and

DOTC awarded Hanjin a contract for the construction of the Davao International Airport. A
subcontracting arrangement was entered into between Hanjin and Dynamic. Breaching their
agreement, Hanjin failed to give Dynamic a down payment, payment for progress billings also
came late, and were effected in installments. Due to design deficiencies, a supplementary
agreement was entered into by the parties. Hanjin subsequently stopped payment to Dynamic
and took over the project for alleged abandonment. Dynamic demanded payment for the work
done, but was unheeded. Dynamic thus submitted its claim against Hanjin for arbitration to the
CIAC.
CIAC issued a computation of credits in favor of Dynamic, as well as deductions against it. CA
affirmed the factual finding of the CIAC with modifications on the award for attorneys fees,
interest rate, and liability for arbitration fees.
Issue: WON CA erred in affirming CIACs factual findings
SC: matters raised by Hanjin are factual, revolving on the entitlement of Dynamic to the awards
granted and computed by the CIAC and CA. Jurisprudence provides that mathematical
computations and propriety of arbitral awards are factual determinations.
The court cannot close its eyes to consistent findings of the CA, affirmatory of that of the CIAC,
that Hanjin padded expenses chargeable against Dynamic and non-abandonment of works by
Dynamic. Conclusions arrived at on factual issues by the CIAC, when affirmed by the CA, are
accorded great respect and even finality. If supported by substantial evidence. In this case, both
the CIAC and the CA found more than ample evidence to support the same.
HUTAMA-RSEA Joint Operations, Inc v. Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corp
Respondent is the general contractor and operator of the Skyway project. Petitioner and
respondent entered into an Engineering Procurement Construction Contract (EPCC) whereby
petitioner would undertake the construction of Stage 1 of the Skyway Project. During said
construction, petitioner wrote respondent on several occasions requesting payment of the
formers interim billings, pursuant to provisions of the EPCC/ however, respondent only partially
paid the interim billings. Respondent failed to do so despite demands to pay its outstanding
balance. Petitioner filed with CIAC a request for arbitration to enforce its money claims against
respondent.
CIAC ruled that it had jurisdiction over the same. CA reversed.
Issue: WON CIAC has jurisdiction despite the EPCC provision requiring prior referral by the parties
of their dispute to the Dispute Adjudication Board
SC: EO 1008 provides that CIAC shall have jurisdiction over a dispute involving a construction
contract of said contract contains an arbitration clause, notwithstanding any reference by the
same contract to another arbitration institution or arbitral body, or even in in the absence of such
a clause in the construction contract, the parties still agree to submit their dispute to arbitration.
Since the jurisdiction of the CIAC is conferred by law, it cannot be subjected to any condition, nor
can it be waived or diminished by the stipulation, act, or omission of the parties, as long as the
parties agreed to submit their construction contract dispute to arbitration, or if there is an
arbitration clause in the construction contract.
Heunghwa Industry Co, Ltd v. DJ Builders Corp

Petitioner was able to secure a contract with DPWH to construct the Roxas-Langogan Road in
Palawan. A subcontract agreement was entered between petitioner and respondent for the
earthwork, sub base course and box culvert of the project. The agreement contained an
arbitration clause. Respondent thereafter filed before the RTC for breach of contract and
collection of sum of money against petitioner. Counsels of the parties submitted the issues to
CIAC. Subsequently, petitioner, through its new counsel, filed before the RTC a motion to
withdraw the order which referred the case to CIAC, claiming it never authorized such referral.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss before the CIAC which was denied. CA affirmed.
Issue: WON CIAC has jurisdiction
SC: Based on law and jurisprudence, the CIAC has jurisdiction over the dispute. EO 1008 vested
in CIAC original and exclusive jurisdiction over construction disputes in construction projects in
the Philippines provided the parties agreed to submit such disputes to arbitration. It is plain and
clear that as long as the parties submit to voluntary arbitration, regardless of what forum they
may choose, their agreement will fall within the jurisdiction of the CIAC, such that, even if they
specifically choose another forum, the parties will not be precluded from electing to submit their
dispute before the CIAC because this right has been vested upon each party by law. Considering
the same, a subsequent consent by the parties would be superfluous and unnecessary.
Where the jurisdiction of CIAC is properly invoked by the filing of a Request for Arbitration in
accordance with the rules, the failure despite due notice which amounts to a refusal of the
respondent to arbitrate, shall not stay the proceedings notwithstanding the absence or lack of
participation of the respondent.