ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 153310. August 2, 2004]

MEGAWORLD GLOBUS ASIA, INC. vs. DSM CONST. & DEV'T CORP.

SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 2 2004 .

G.R. No. 153310 (Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. v. DSM Construction and Development Corporation and Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc.)

On March 2, 2004, this Court rendered a Decision in this case affirming the judgm-ent of the Court of Appeals, which in turn upheld that of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). Petitioner Megaworld Globus Asia, Inc. pleaded a reconsideration of the March 2, 2004 Decision: The Court by Resolution dated May 19, 2004 denied petitioner's motion with finality, the basic issues raised therein having been duly considered and passed upon by the Court in its Decision and no substantial argument having been adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought.

On June 28, 2004, petitioner filed another motion, this time seeking the suspension of the procedural rules "in the higher interest of substantial justice" as well as the referral of the case to the Court En Banc.

Petitioner claims that its right to due process was violated "either in the ponencia's refusal to review evidence brought by petitioner to its attention, or the failure to at least explain why such testimonial or documentary evidence are improper or untenable." Petitioner proceeds to cite pieces of evidence attempting to meet those of respondent-contractor DSM Construction and Development Corporation and to dispute the conclusions reached by both the CIAC and the Court of Appeals. These pertain to the issues of delay and retention, accomplishment level, liquidated damages, and the unpaid balance of the contract price. Petitioner then accuses the Court of "junking" its [petitioner's] evidence and arguments in favor of respondent DSM's. Finally, petitioner points to certain "irregularities" that attended the proceedings, from the CIAC to the Court of Appeals to this Court.

The motion is denied.

The issues raised by petitioner in its Petition for Review on Certiorari, its Motion for Reconsideration as well as the present motion, are purely factual. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals, however, is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, as its findings of facts are deemed conclusive. The Court is not bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.1 This Court, it is settled, is not a trier of facts.2

The rule applies with greater force where the Court of Appeals affirms the factual findings of administrative agencies.3 The reason is that administrative agencies possess specialized knowledge and expertise in their respective fields.4 Accordingly, factual findings of administrative agencies are generally held to be binding and final so long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record of the case.5 The evidence, to repeat, need only be substantial, not overwhelming or preponderant.6 Thus, this Court has upheld the findings of the CIAC, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.7 The Court said as much in its Decision in this case:

Considering that the computations, as well as the propriety of the awards of the Arbitral Tribunal are unquestionably factual issues that have been discussed and ruled upon by [the] Arbitral Tribunal and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, we cannot depart from such findings. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.8

In deciding on the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court's task was merely to determine whether the decisions of the CIAC and the Court of Appeals are supported by substantial evidence, not to re-assess and re-weigh the evidence presented by the parties. This explains the ponencia's repeated references to the said decisions and the evidence and arguments supporting the conclusions therein.

Petitioner claims that the irregularities which "tainted" the proceedings in this case amounted to a denial of its right to due process. It relates that while this case was pending before the CIAC, a news article appeared in a "tabloid... carrying the views of the respondent DSM," the purported source of which was one of respondent's officers. When the case reached the Court of Appeals, notices of liens and other articles were published in the newspapers. A report of this Court's Decision also appeared in the column of one newspaper before a copy thereof was received by the parties. Petitioner attributes these perceived anomalies to "the handiwork of respondent DSM," leading it to the conclusion that "'all the odds were unduly stacked against the petitioner' in these proceedings."

Since the alleged contumacious acts were committed in the proceedings below action thereon, if at all, is generally best left to the tribunals below as they were the ones allegedly contemned.9 If petitioner elected not to seek redress then it should not gripe at this time, or if the tribunals ignored petitioner's complaints of contumacy, there are more appropriate remedies available to petitioner.

Petitioner has not informed this Court whether he has filed in this Court a petition to cite respondent DSM in contempt for the latter's allegedly contumacious acts. In a Letter to petitioner's counsel dated March 31, 2004, Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, former Acting Chair of the Court's Second Division, has already explained that the unofficial copy of the Court's Decision obtained by the CIAC was downloaded from the Court's official website.

In any case, petitioner has not shown that the "unwarranted publicity" that attended this case violated its right to due process. Petitioner has not established that such so-called adverse publicity indeed unduly influenced the members of this Court and that of the lower tribunals in arriving at their respective decisions.10

Failing to support the grounds set forth in its motion, petitioner's plea to suspend the rule prohibiting a second motion for reconsideration must be denied and, with it, petitioner's prayer that the case be referred to the Court En Bane. In all events, the members of the Second Division do not deem this case as one that merits the attention of the Banc.11

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolves to TREAT petitioner's "Motion to Suspend Procedural Rules in the Higher Interest of Substantial Justice and to Refer the Case En Banc" as a second motion for reconsideration of the Decision dated March 2, 2004, and to DENY the same for being a prohibited pleading under Section 2, Rule 52 in relation to Section 4, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, as amended, and for lack of merit.

No further pleadings will be entertained.

Let entry of judgment be made forthwith.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

1 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116372, January 18, 2001, 349 SCRA 451; Omandam v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128750, January 18, 2001, 349 SCRA 483; Goldenrod, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127232, September 28, 2001, 366 SCRA 217.

2 Prudential Bank and Trust Company v. Reyes, G.R. No. 141093, February 20, 2001, 352 SCRA 316; First Metro Investment Corporation v. Este Del Sol Mountain Reserve, Inc., G.R. No. 141811, November 15, 2001, 369 SCRA 99.

3 Miralles v. Go, G.R. No. 139943, January 18, 2001 , 349 SCRA 596.

4 Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121267, October 23, 2001, 368 SCRA 9; Calvo v. Vergara, G.R. No. 134741, December 19, 2001, 372 SCRA 650.

5 Pabu-aya v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128082, April 18, 2001 , 356 SCRA 651.

6 Energy Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals, 357 SCRA 30.

7 See Public Estates Authority v. Uy, G.R. Nos. 147933-34, December 12, 2001; 372 SCRA 180, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Santamaria, G.R. No. 139885, January 13, 2003, 395 SCRA 84.

8 Rollo, p. 1117, citing Public Estates Authority v. Uy, supra.

9 People v. Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09, March 29, 1995, 243 SCRA 64.

10 People v. Sesbre�o, G.R. No. 121764, September 9, 1999, 314 SCRA 87, citing Webb v. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, and accompanying cases, August 23, 1995, 247 SCRA 653, and People v. Teehankee, G.R. Nos. 111206-08, October 6, 1995, 249 SCRA 54 (1995); People v. Sanchez, G.R. Nos. 121039-45, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 21.

11 B.M. No. 209, November 18, 1993.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com