602 Phil. 945
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered and award made on the monetary claims of the parties as FOLLOWS:Romago filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 89959. Meanwhile, SK-KG filed with the CIAC a Motion for Execution of the CIAC award. On 30 January 2006, CIAC granted the Motion. On 30 March 2006, CIAC issued a Writ of Execution.
A. In favor of the [herein respondent]-Sub Contractor ROMAGO, INC., against [herein petitioner] Main Contractor SUMMA KUMAGAI, INC., KUMAGAI GUMI CO., LTD. JOINT VENTURE:
P2,195,535.18 - as the admitted liability of the [SK-KG] to the [Romago] for the unpaid balance of the PMIs and the CIs. P480,538.89 - for the total of Claim Items Nos. 186, 187 and 198 of the unreconciled items on this claim. P296,039.37 - representing what [SK-KG] admittedly had mistakenly overcharged [Romago] for its electric power consumption interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be computed from 29 October 2003 up to the date of payment. P263,984.95 - for the installation of the ECB's. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be computed from 06 September 2003 up to the date of payment. P484,883.26 - for the costs of power interconnection to the DDC. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be computed from 14 July 2003 up to the date of payment.
P553,225.20 - for the installation of extension ring boxes to connect pipes and to complete the rough-in conduit works performed by the previous Electrical Sub-Contractor, Engineering Equipment Incorporated SKI-KG JV. P3,568,077.03 - as reimbursement of [Romago's] bid amount based on the OLEX Brand of Fire Rated Cable. P157,675.05 - as payment for rectification works due to spatial clashes in the second floor. P7,999,958.13 - TOTAL DUE TO [Romago]
B. In favor of the [petitioner]-Main Contractor SUMMA KUMAGAI, INC., - KUMAGAI GUMI CO., LTD JOINT VENTURE and against the [respondent]-Sub Contractor ROMAGO, INC.
P5,351,057.36 - on its counterclaim, for the unrecouped actual cost of Supplemental Manpower; P5,575,310.03 - on its counterclaim for the unrecouped actual cost of tools, materials and equipment. P25,729,263.86 - as the unrecouped balance of the cash advances given to the [Romago]. P1,131,244.29 - as the deductions or backcharges admitted by the [respondent] to have been validly made. P37,786,875.04 - TOTAL DUE TO [SK-KG]
OFFSETTING the foregoing awards respectively made to the parties, there remains a balance of P29,786,916.912 in favor of [SK-KG].[3]
It is hereby DIRECTED that [SK-KG] shall release the sum of P7,375,400.39 being the balance of the Retention Sum after the warranty period on 10 June 2005.
WHEREFORE, the decision dated March 3, 2005 of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission in CIAC Case No. 28-2004 is hereby MODIFIED. [Herein petitioner] Summa Kumagai, Inc. - Kumagai Gumi Co., Ltd., Inc. Joint Venture is hereby DIRECTED to pay Romago, Incorporated the following sums:On 18 January 2007, SK-KG filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned Decision, but the Motion was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated 20 March 2007. SK-KG received a copy of the said Court of Appeals Resolution on 30 March 2007.
P6,103,531.94 - representing the unpaid balance under the original contract; P6,251,394.00 - representing additional expenses incurred under Romago's crash program; P6,739,737.72 - representing additional manpower and materials under the Extended Preliminaries; P2,682,394.41 - for expenses in testing and commissioning electrical equipment; P700,000.00 - for improperly deducted savings from the use of local FABRIDUCT materials; P914,365.72 - representing price differential for Styline Model Hubbell devices; P711,633.51 - cost of supply and installation of extended bus bars; P498,813.34 - representing improper deduction for rental of temporary Alimak lifts; P262,500.00 - as compensation for As-built Drawings; P787,172.62 - representing material escalation; P854,923.28 - representing cost of ancilliary fittings for lighting fixtures; P7,375,400.39 - representing the balance of retention money due to Romago, Incorporated. ____________ P33,881,866.93 ===========
The other awards in favor of Romago, Incorporated in CIAC Decision dated March 3, 2005 in CIAC Case No. 28-2004, the aggregate amount of P7,999,958.13, are AFFIRMED. All awards in favor of [SK-KG] in the same case are hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.
Attorney's fees in an amount equivalent to five percent (5%) of all awards in favor of Romago, Incorporated are AWARDED to the [Romago].
The writ of preliminary injunction issued pursuant to the Resolution of this Court dated June 28, 2006 is made PERMANENT.
The Division Clerk of Court is hereby ORDERED to return to the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission the records of CIAC Case No. 28-2004 as soon as possible.[4]
Romago adds the following issues for our resolution:I
WHETHER OR NOT THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF [ROMAGO] WERE VIOLATED BY CIAC THAT WOULD WARRANT THE REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE MONETARY AWARDS OF CIAC RENDERED IN FAVOR OF [SK-KG].II
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN REVERSE A RULING BY THE CIAC A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY WITH SPECIALIZED SKILL OR EXPERTISE IN ADJUDICATING CONSTRUCTION RELATED DISPUTES BASED ON FINDINGS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, ADMISSIONS OF [ROMAGO], AND THE UNDISPUTED FACTS.III
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN RENDER MONETARY AWARDS BASED ON DOCUMENTS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIAC AND WERE ONLY BELATEDLY SUBMITTED BY [ROMAGO] IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF [SK-KG].IV
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN RENDER MONETARY AWARDS FOR RELIEF THAT WAS NOT PRAYED FOR OR RAISED AS AN ISSUE IN THE PETITION BY [ROMAGO], WAS NOT PART OF THE CLAIMS SOUGHT BY [ROMAGO] IN THE CIAC, AND WAS NOT EVEN ONE OF THE ISSUES DECIDED UPON IN THE CIAC THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL.V
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS RENDERED MONETARY AWARDS BASED ON SPECULATION, SURMISE OR CONJECTURE, CONTRARY TO ADMISSIONS OF PARTY, BASED ON MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN AND THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD (sic), AND CONTRARY TO THE WELL ESTABLISHED LEGAL PRINCIPLES ON THE AWARD OF MORAL DAMAGES.[5]
Before proceeding to the merits of the present Petition, the Court shall first tackle the objection of Romago to the reinstatement of the Petition for Review of SK-KG. Romago argues that the excuses of stress and fatigue proffered by the counsel for SK-KG are too convenient to inspire belief. Romago invokes A.M. No. 00-02-14-SC which provides that any extension of time to file the required pleading should be counted from the expiration of the period, regardless of the fact that said due date is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.
- WHETHER THE FINALITY OF THE CA DECISION SHOULD BE IGNORED FOR THE ADMITTED ERROR OF COUNSEL IN COMPUTING THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD DUE TO ALLEGED STRESS AND FATIGUE IN PREPARING THE INSTANT PETITION.
- WHETHER THE INSTANT PETITION HAS ENOUGH MERIT TO OVERLOOK THE FINALITY OF THE CA DECISION.[6]
ATTY. BAROQUE:The CIAC is completely mistaken in denying the attempt of Romago to present evidence against the counterclaims of the SK-KG on the ground that the failure of Romago to file a Reply to the Answer of SK-KG was deemed an admission of the counterclaims in said Answer.
Your Honor, the point that I'm trying to make is that it was not allowed in the Terms of Reference, [it's] not one of the claims being made by the claimant and yet x x x.
PROF. A. F. TADIAR:
Which one?
ATTY. BAROQUE:
The unrecouped supplementary manpower cost x x x.
x x x x
PROF. A. F. TADIAR:
Unrecouped expenses.
ATTY. BAROQUE:
Your honor, the [Romago] has already listed specifically all the back charges that they are questioning in this case and the back charges for the manpower and the tools and the materials were never raised in the complaint and were never cited in the Terms of Reference. So my clarification is, are we allowing them to produce evidence with respect to the x x x? But these back charges in effect questioning the back charges when, in fact, they did not raise in their claim in the complaint and were not discussed during the Terms of Reference.
x x x x
ATTY. BAROQUE:
My clarification, your Honor, is can the [Romago] produce evidence with respect to claims that are not listed in their Complaint?
PROF. A. F. TADIAR:
He is refuting your entitlement to your counterclaim, not claim. This is a question in relation to refuting your counterclaim not establishing their claim.[9]
x x x x
ENGR. J.J. MARCIANO:
Is this still part of this P10,702,000.00?
ATTY. VILLA:
Yes, your Honor.
MR. ABALORA:
Yes, Your Honor.
ENGR. J. J. MARCIANO:
That they are backcharging you?
MR. ABALORA:
Yes, Your Honor.
x x x x
ATTY. BAROQUE:
But for clarification, your Honors, they already waived their rights with respect to backcharging of the supplemental manpower and materials. That's not listed in one of their claims so x x x.[10]
x x x x
PROF. A. F. TADIAR:
I agree with the observation of [SK-KG's] counsel as to why he cannot understand why we are dwelling so much on this particular issue when you are not making any claim as to the validity of [the] backcharging and the supplemental manpower? So let's move on to some other point?[11]
x x x x
ENGR. J. J. MARCIANO:
I have a fundamental question, Counselor. Since you appear to be disputing all these backcharges, why did you not place this as [an] issue in your Complaint?
ATTY. M. L. VILLA:
Your Honor, again as we are saying, we are claiming only these amounts of money because these are the amounts that we feel [are] justly due [to] Romago [for the] works done.
PROF. A. F. TADIAR:
But are you not aware that if they win on their counterclaim, all your claims will be wiped out, is that not correct?
ATTY. M. L. VILLA:
Yes, Your Honor. But when we made the [Complaint], your Honor, we felt it was already jumping the [gun] that we will be defending [against] something [that] they're not claiming yet.
PROF. A. F. TADIAR:
Why did you not submit a Reply to the Answer? You know that you are entitled to make a Reply to the Answer, is it not correct?
ATTY. M. L. VILLA:
Yes, Your Honor.
PROF. A. F. TADIAR:
Earlier it is understandable [not] to mention that in your [Complaint], of course you cannot deny their countercharges because you don't know yet what is their counterclaim. But when you came to know when they filed their Answer that they contained counterclaims, why did you not make a Reply disputing all of their backcharges? That is the issue, ATTY. VILLA. Okay. Go ahead.[12]
SEC. 10. Reply.--A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged by way of defense in the answer and thereby join or make issue as to such new matters. If a party does not file such reply, all the new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted.It is true that the Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration (CIAC Rules) does not mention any suppletory application of the Rules of Court to CIAC proceedings. However, rules of procedure of courts are stricter than those of quasi-judicial bodies. Administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers are unfettered by the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, subject to the observance of fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases presented before them. In administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense.[13]
If the plaintiff whishes to interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so alleged such claims shall be set forth in an amended or supplemental complaint. (Emphasis supplied.)