"You're a beautiful, a beautiful fucked up man
You're setting up your razor wire shrine"
Here's the fucks.. I mean Facts.
Cid spouses right?.. herein private respondents are engaged in a family business. They purchase ready-mix concrete products from petitioner herein, PhilRock, Inc. Eto yung mga cemento, mga indoor & outdoor tiles, panels & stuff.
So ang ganda ng usapan. The fuckin' thing was.. the concrete products delivered by the latter turned out to be of fuckin' substandard quality. E di syempre as a result the fuckin' structures built using such fuckin' cement developed fuckin' cracks and honey combs (honey comb anay.. gets?).
So.. respondents, filed a complaint for damages against petitioner with the QC-RTC, which then issued an order dismissing the case and referring the same to CIAC.
Ang galeng no? The construction industry has its own arbitration commission. Pano kase madalas ang issue jan... 2 parties agree, signed the document.. pag delivery na and inspect mo substandard material pala. Laging gulangan kasi jan. So good thing there's arbitration.. isipin mo nga naman, simpleng bagay lang ang pinagaawayan padadaanen mo pa ba sa korte yan, they will just clog the court dockets kung magkakasuhan ng magkakasuhan tong mga to.
So the spouses and petitioner had filed an Agreement to Arbitrate.
Now take note.. Since no common ground can be reached by the parties, they requested the case be remanded back again to the court, to which it had declared it no longer had jurisdiction over the case and ordered the records of the case to be remanded back again to CIAC.
Hahaha.,. pasahan ng bola... "ikaw na shmoot!!" "de kaw na!!" LOL. At least walang bakaw..
Petitioner contended the supposed jurisdiction of CIAC
E di syempre CIAC rendered a decision in favor of the spouses. LOL Tinatalo nyo kame ah.. teka
Thus, petitioner PhilRock filed a Petition for Review before the CA, to which the latter dismissed. Hence this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Could CIAC take jurisdiction over the case of respondent spouses and petitioner after it had been dismissed by both the RTC and CIAC?
RULING:
Court said Petition has no merit.
Section 4 of EO 1008 expressly vests in the CIAC original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from or connected with construction contracts entered into by parties that have agreed to submit their disputes to voluntary arbitration.
Section 4 of EO 1008 expressly vests in the CIAC original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from or connected with construction contracts entered into by parties that have agreed to submit their disputes to voluntary arbitration.
Further, petitioner continued participating in the arbitration even after the CIAC order has been issued as evidenced by their concluding and signing of the Terms of Reference.
Onga naman... if you're questioning something you don't agree with.. why step forward and be part of it?.. Qequestion mo tapos sasali ka tas pagnatalo ka babalik ka sa question mo.. duh
The Court said it will not countenance any effort of any party to subvert or defeat the objective of voluntary arbitration for its own private motives. Petitioner is stopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the CIAC, merely because the latter rendered an adverse decision.
So.. the spouses won this case.
