DHY Realty & Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals-Special Sixth Division

A Rule 65 petition is not the proper remedy to challenge CIAC arbitral awards and CA rulings where appeal or another plain, speedy, adequate remedy exists and no grave abuse of discretion is shown; service of CIAC notices to a corporation's last known address in its latest GIS satisfies due process.

DHY Realty & Development Corporation and Wing-An Construction Development Corporation were parties to a Construction Contract Agreement for a warehouse building with a canteen in Pasig City, which contained an arbitration clause. The dispute therefore fell within the CIAC's jurisdiction under the 2016 CIAC Rules, including the rule that an arbitration clause is deemed a submission to CIAC jurisdiction and its Rules, and Resolution No. 11-2010 governs delivery of communications to parties whose whereabouts are unknown.

DHY Realty & Development Corporation (DHY Realty) and Wing-An Construction Development Corporation (Wing-An) entered into a Construction Contract Agreement on June 24, 2014 for Wing-An to construct a warehouse building with a canteen for DHY Realty at M. Eusebio Avenue, Barangay San Miguel, Pasig City. The contract contained an arbitration clause providing that any dispute, controversy, or difference between the parties arising from the contract shall be submitted to arbitration. Wing-An commenced construction on January 10, 2014 with the intention of completing all works in August 2014, and DHY Realty engaged Richard N. Santos & Associates (RNS) as construction manager.

During construction, Wing-An submitted a proposal to construct a 114.11 x 2.0 meters high fence near the canteen, quoting PHP12,284.069.54; DHY Realty accepted and approved the proposal, and Wing-An constructed the high fence. Wing-An claimed that when it demanded payment of the agreed contract price, DHY Realty refused and instead demanded that the height of the fence be increased by 1.5 meters; Wing-An agreed, but received only PHP600,000.00 despite DHY Realty's promise to fully pay upon completion of the additional work. Wing-An sent a letter dated October 4, 2014 demanding payment of its partial billing for all additional works already completed, and a second letter dated January 20, 2015 informing DHY Realty that it would impose 3% monthly interest because it had obtained a loan from China Banking Corporation to fund the additional work.

DHY Realty, Wing-An, and RNS representatives met to discuss Wing-An's demand for payment. In that meeting, DHY Realty and Wing-An agreed that Wing-An would cease construction work except for certain identified works; that remaining unfinished and rectification works would be assigned by DHY Realty to another contractor provided Wing-An agreed to the cost and monitored the works; that RNS would evaluate all works performed by Wing-An, prepare a report of all additional works done, and endorse to DHY Realty payment of the total amount due to Wing-An; and that DHY Realty would pay within 15 days from receipt of RNS's endorsement. DHY Realty also supposedly agreed to pay Billing No. 13, which was outstanding at the time of the meeting. Wing-An claimed that DHY Realty reneged on its obligations, and sent a letter dated February 5, 2015 demanding payment of unsettled billings for additional works, change orders, and variation orders. After another meeting and an exchange of letters, no agreement was reached as to payment.

Wing-An sent a letter dated June 22, 2015 demanding payment for the completed high fence plus 3% interest. DHY Realty, through its President Domingo H. Yap, responded in a letter dated June 25, 2015 stating that Wing-An had no basis for imposing 3% interest and informing Wing-An that it would claim liquidated damages if Wing-An insisted on payment of interest. Wing-An countered in its letter dated June 25, 2015. In a letter dated July 12, 2015, Wing-An expressed its intention to commence arbitration unless DHY Realty complied with its demand for payment within five days from receipt. On October 27, 2015, Wing-An sent a final demand letter for PHP15,864,178.01 plus 3% interest reckoned from the third day of DHY Realty's receipt of the final demand, but DHY Realty did not heed the demand.

On September 29, 2016, Wing-An filed its Complaint dated June 17, 2016 and a Request for Arbitration dated September 29, 2016 with the CIAC, praying that DHY Realty and Yap be held solidarily liable for PHP15,864,178.01 representing additional works, change orders, and variation orders, subject to 3% interest; PHP1,000,000.00 in exemplary damages; and filing fees and arbitrator fees. The Complaint stated that DHY Realty and Yap may be served with summons and other legal processes at Bel-air Soho Condominium Corp., #45 Polaris Corner Badajos St., Poblacion, Makati City (Makati Address).

On September 30, 2016, CIAC Executive Director Kathryn Josephine T. Dela Cruz sent a Letter-Notice dated September 30, 2016 to Yap as President of DHY Realty, informing him that Wing-An had filed a Complaint and Request for Arbitration and that DHY Realty and Yap should answer the Complaint and nominate six arbitrators within 15 days from receipt; copies of the Complaint, Request for Arbitration, and annexed documents were attached, and the letter was sent by courier to the Makati Address. The CIAC sent letters to Wing-An's nominees—Atty. Myra Angeli G. Batungbakal, Engr. Danilo B. Cariño, and Atty. Eduardo R. Ceniza—who all accepted appointment; copies of relevant communications were furnished to DHY Realty through the Makati Address. The CIAC issued an Order dated January 10, 2017 setting the case for preliminary conference on January 31, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., with copies furnished to DHY Realty and Yap at the Makati Address. On January 20, 2017, the CIAC issued an Order stating that the Letter-Notice was delivered to DHY Realty and Wing-An through LBC courier on October 1, 2016; that LBC's website showed the Letter-Notice was received by a certain Sheena Garcia on October 1, 2016 and no advice was received by CIAC that the documents were returned; that the copy of the appointment of the members of the Tribunal sent to Yap was received by Angelo Reyes and Jerry Santos, security guards on duty, but was later returned to LBC and then to CIAC for the reason "Returned shipment due to move out/consignee not known"; and that the January 10, 2017 Order was not served or received for the reason "Consignee unknown per guard on duty." The CIAC directed Wing-An to determine whether DHY Realty had moved out from the Makati Address and, if so, its correct principal address, and to notify the CIAC Secretariat and Tribunal.

In compliance, Wing-An submitted DHY Realty's Amended Articles of Incorporation and latest General Information Sheet dated September 22, 2016, which stated that DHY Realty's principal official address was the Makati Address. The preliminary conference pushed through on February 17, 2017, with only Wing-An and its counsel appearing. Pursuant to the Terms of Reference, Wing-An filed the Judicial Affidavit of Engr. Selwyn F. Lao, its sole witness, and its documentary evidence; neither DHY Realty nor Yap filed witness statements or submitted any other evidence. The CIAC held the evidentiary hearing on March 31, 2017, and again only Wing-An appeared. Wing-An filed its Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence dated April 18, 2017 and its Memorandum on April 19, 2017. The CIAC Tribunal promulgated its Final Award on May 9, 2017, finding that there was proper service because the Makati Address was also DHY Realty's and Yap's address as stated in DHY Realty's June 25, 2015 letterhead and in CIAC Executive Director Dela Cruz's September 30, 2015 letter to Yap; the CIAC said it had no duty to verify the correct address and whereabouts of respondents and simply assumes that the address stated in the Complaint is correct unless overturned by evidence, which was not the case. The CIAC ordered DHY Realty to pay Wing-An PHP9,160,000.00 representing the value of extra or additional works, change and variation orders, plus 6% interest per annum from finality; PHP300,000.00 as attorney's fees; and PHP487,043.07 for cost of arbitration; it denied the claim for exemplary damages and all other claims for lack of merit. The Notice of Award and Final Award were served on DHY Realty at the Makati Address. Wing-An filed a Motion for Correction of Computation and/or Reconsideration dated May 24, 2017, which the CIAC denied on May 30, 2017.

Wing-An filed a Rule 43 Petition for Review with the CA, praying that the amount awarded be increased from PHP9,160,000.00 to PHP15,864,178.01; the Petition was served on DHY Realty through the Makati Address. The CA allowed substituted service, later confirmed that service on the Clerk of Court was complete, ordered personal service of its July 5, 2017 Resolution, and after personal and registered mail service failed, deemed service complete upon delivery to the Division Clerk of Court on May 31, 2018 under Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. The CA also required DHY Realty to show cause why the Petition should not be deemed submitted for decision without comment, and later deemed DHY Realty to have waived the right to file comment and submitted the case for decision. On January 29, 2019, the CA denied Wing-An's Petition for Review for lack of merit and affirmed the CIAC Final Award; it relied on the Final Award's statement that the CIAC had no duty to verify DHY Realty's address and on Section 4.2 of the CIAC Rules. The CA denied Wing-An's motion for reconsideration on June 21, 2019.

On August 15, 2019, the CIAC issued a Writ of Execution ordering Sheriff Allan R. Amon to execute the Final Award. On October 8, 2019, Amon issued a Notice of Garnishment to China Bank. On October 30, 2019, DHY Realty filed a Formal Entry of Appearance with Omnibus Motion to quash the Writ of Execution and lift the Notice of Garnishment, stating that it learned of the arbitration proceedings only when China Bank informed it of the garnishment on October 8, 2019; it claimed that the Makati Address was wrong and that its principal address was Christine Royale Executive Subdivision, M. Eusebio Street, San Miguel, Pasig City (Pasig Address). The CIAC set the motion for hearing and, on December 4, 2019, denied it, stating that the CA Decision affirming the Final Award was already final and executory, that the CIAC's jurisdiction had terminated, and that DHY Realty's remedy, if any, must be pursued in a court of law. DHY Realty then filed this Rule 65 Petition on December 10, 2019.

• Due Process and Improper Service: DHY Realty argued that it did not receive the notices issued by the CIAC, resulting in its failure to appear in the arbitral proceedings; it claimed that the Makati Address provided by Wing-An was erroneous because DHY Realty's current principal office address was the Pasig Address.
• Bad Faith and GIS Reliance: DHY Realty argued that Wing-An acted in bad faith when it failed to disclose the Pasig Address despite knowing it because the parties conducted meetings there during the implementation of the Construction Contract; DHY Realty also asserted that justice and fairness dictated that the 2016 GIS was insufficient to ascertain its 2017 office address.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: DHY Realty argued that since there was no proper service of the CIAC's notices, it was denied its right to participate in the hearing, confront Wing-An, and defend its position, amounting to grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CIAC; it also argued that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained Wing-An's Petition for Review without considering the violation of DHY Realty's right to due process and the nullity of the assailed award.

• No Motion for Reconsideration: Wing-An argued that the Petition should be denied because DHY Realty failed to file a motion for reconsideration before filing its Petition, and that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a precondition before a party can institute a special civil action for certiorari.
• Finality and Immutability: Wing-An argued that the CA Decision and the Final Award had both attained finality, had become immutable, and must be enforced.
• Proper Service at Last Known Address: Wing-An argued that DHY Realty failed to present evidence showing that the Pasig Address was its principal address; according to Wing-An, the Pasig Address was the location of the construction project, a warehouse, and not DHY Realty's office. Wing-An maintained that it properly relied on DHY Realty's latest AOI and GIS filed on September 22, 2016, and invoked Resolution No. 11-2010, which requires only that relevant notices be served at a party's last known address by personal delivery or courier.
• Sheriff's Ministerial Duty: Respondent Sheriff Amon argued that, as a Sheriff, the fiduciary nature of his duties dictated that he act with reasonable promptness and celerity in the enforcement of writs of execution; his duty to enforce a writ of execution is purely ministerial, and unless restrained by a court, he ought to execute a final award without undue delay. He prayed that DHY Realty be directed to comply with the Writ of Execution.

• Propriety of Rule 65: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the correct remedy to challenge the alleged invalidity of the assailed CIAC and CA issuances.
• Service of CIAC Notices and Due Process: Whether DHY Realty was properly served with the CIAC Tribunal's notices pertaining to the arbitration proceedings.

• Propriety of Rule 65: No. Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available only where there is no appeal or plain, speedy, adequate remedy and grave abuse of discretion is shown; DHY failed to file a motion for reconsideration and had available appeal remedies.
• Service of CIAC Notices and Due Process: Yes. The CIAC validly served notices at DHY Realty's last known address as stated in its latest GIS, and the CA validly resorted to substituted service after failed personal and mail service.

• Propriety of Rule 65: The SC held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy, not equivalent to or a substitute for an appeal, and is subject to stringent requirements. It is available only against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions that acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Grave abuse of discretion has a precise meaning: abuse too patent and gross as to amount to evasion of a positive duty, virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or exercise of power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility; it does not encompass an error of law or a mistake in the appreciation of evidence. A motion for reconsideration before the lower court is generally a prerequisite to a Rule 65 petition to afford the lower court an opportunity to correct its imputed errors. DHY Realty failed to comply: it did not file a motion for reconsideration in the CA and did not allege or show any exception; it did not explain why it directly filed the Rule 65 Petition. At the time of filing, Rule 45 was available to challenge the CA Decision and CA Resolution on questions of law, and Rule 43 was available to assail the CIAC Final Award. The SC also noted that under Global Medical Center of Laguna, Inc. vs. Ross Systems International, Inc., judicial review of CIAC arbitral awards takes two routes—pure questions of law to the SC under Rule 45, and challenges to the integrity of the arbitral tribunal or constitutionality or validity of its actions to the CA under Rule 65—but that ruling is prospective and does not apply to appeals filed and pending before the CA prior to its promulgation. Since Wing-An's Rule 43 Petition was filed on June 21, 2017 and DHY's Rule 65 Petition on December 10, 2019, the pre-Global Medical Center rules applied: CIAC awards were reviewed by the CA through Rule 43, and CA rulings could be appealed to the SC on questions of law via Rule 45; Rule 65 was not proscribed but had to comply with stringent requirements. DHY failed to show grave abuse. The CA and CIAC were circumspect and afforded DHY opportunities to participate: the CIAC directed Wing-An to determine DHY's correct address after notices were returned, proceeded under Rule 4.2 after ascertaining the Makati Address as the last known address, evaluated Wing-An's evidence with care because DHY was absent, and heard DHY's Omnibus Motion before denying it. The CA allowed substituted service only after personal and registered mail service failed, ordered personal service of its July 5, 2017 Resolution, and gave DHY a chance to show cause. Any errors in allowing substituted service or relying on Wing-An's information were errors of law or judgment, not errors of jurisdiction.

• Service of CIAC Notices and Due Process: The SC held that the CIAC Rules and Resolution No. 11-2010 govern service of notices in CIAC arbitration. Under Section 4.1 and Section 4.1.1 of the 2016 CIAC Rules, an arbitration clause in a construction contract is deemed an agreement to submit to CIAC jurisdiction, and parties are deemed to have submitted to the CIAC Rules. Under Section 4.2, a respondent's failure despite due notice to arbitrate does not stay the proceedings; the CIAC may appoint arbitrators and continue, receiving the claimant's evidence. Under paragraph 2 of Section 6.2, if the Notice to Respondent/Request to Answer is not received because of a wrong address or because the respondent moved out or cannot be found at the last known address provided by the claimant, the CIAC Secretariat shall inform the claimant and require the correct or new address within 15 days; if the claimant fails to comply, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice. Under paragraph 5 of Resolution No. 11-2010, delivery of initial and subsequent communications to a party whose whereabouts are unknown shall be made to the last known address by personal delivery or courier, and the communication is deemed delivered when duly certified to the CIAC or arbitral tribunal. Harmonizing these rules, the SC said that where the notice is not delivered because of a wrong address or the respondent cannot be found, the CIAC shall require the claimant to ascertain the correct address; once the claimant complies, Resolution No. 11-2010 applies, and communications are served at the last known address by personal delivery or courier, with delivery deemed complete when certified. Here, the Letter-Notice was delivered through LBC to the Makati Address and received by Sheena Garcia on October 1, 2016; it was not returned to the CIAC, and the courier did not inform the CIAC of non-delivery. Only subsequent notices were returned for "consignee unknown" and "move out." DHY Realty's bare denial of receipt was unsupported and belied by the records; it offered no courier confirmation of non-delivery. The CIAC Rules do not require service on a specific list of corporate officers for a corporation; delivery to the respondent's last known address suffices. Thus, the CIAC's obligation under Section 6.2 did not even arise because the Letter-Notice was delivered. Even so, the CIAC exercised due care by directing Wing-An to ascertain DHY's address after subsequent notices were returned. Wing-An relied on DHY Realty's AOI and latest GIS filed on September 22, 2016, which stated the Makati Address as the principal office address. A GIS is an SEC-required document containing vital corporate information, including principal office address, and is submitted under oath; courts have relied on GIS information in various cases. DHY Realty did not allege or prove that it submitted a new GIS with an updated address at the time of the January 20, 2017 Order, and its June 25, 2015 letterhead showed the Makati Address. DHY's claim that Wing-An acted in bad faith by not disclosing the Pasig Address failed because the Construction Contract showed that the Pasig Address was the address of the warehouse building subject of the construction project, not DHY's office; bare allegations that a corporation moved cannot outweigh the reliability of a GIS. The CIAC therefore validly proceeded with the arbitration despite DHY's absence, and the Final Award, Writ of Execution, and Notice of Garnishment were valid. The CA likewise validly relied on the GIS and, after several failed attempts at personal and registered mail service, validly allowed substituted service under Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.

• Rule 65 as an extraordinary remedy — A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for appeal and is available only where there is no appeal or plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and where the tribunal, board, or officer acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The SC applied this to dismiss DHY Realty's Petition because DHY had Rule 45 and Rule 43 remedies and failed to file a motion for reconsideration.
• Grave abuse of discretion — The phrase has a precise meaning: abuse of discretion too patent and gross as to amount to evasion of a positive duty, virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or exercise of power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility. It does not encompass an error of law or a mistake in the appreciation of evidence. The SC held that DHY's complaints about substituted service and reliance on Wing-An's address information were at most errors of law or judgment, not grave abuse.
• Judicial review of CIAC arbitral awards — Under Global Medical Center of Laguna, Inc. vs. Ross Systems International, Inc., review of CIAC arbitral awards takes two routes: (a) pure questions of law are filed directly and exclusively with the SC under Rule 45, notwithstanding Rule 43; and (b) challenges to the integrity of the arbitral tribunal (corruption, fraud, misconduct, evident partiality, incapacity, or excess of powers) or to the unconstitutionality or invalidity of its actions in the arbitral process are filed with the CA under Rule 65 on grave abuse of discretion, where factual review may be had. This ruling is prospective and does not apply to appeals filed and pending before the CA prior to its promulgation. For pre-Global Medical Center filings, CIAC awards were reviewed by the CA under Rule 43, and CA rulings could be appealed to the SC under Rule 45 on questions of law.
• Service of CIAC notices at the last known address — Under Section 6.2 of the CIAC Rules, if the Notice to Respondent/Request to Answer is not received because of a wrong address or because the respondent moved out or cannot be found at the last known address provided by the claimant, the CIAC shall require the claimant to provide the correct or new address; failure to comply leads to dismissal without prejudice. Under Resolution No. 11-2010, delivery of communications to a party whose whereabouts are unknown shall be made to the last known address by personal delivery or courier, and delivery is deemed complete when duly certified to the CIAC or arbitral tribunal. The SC applied these rules and found that the Letter-Notice was delivered to the Makati Address and not returned, so the CIAC's Section 6.2 obligation did not arise; the CIAC nonetheless acted with due care by requiring Wing-An to ascertain DHY's address.
• Reliance on the GIS for corporate address — A General Information Sheet is an SEC-required corporate document containing vital information, including the principal office address, and is submitted under oath. Courts give credence to GIS information, and bare allegations that a corporation moved to a different address cannot outweigh the reliability of the GIS. The SC held that Wing-An, the CIAC, and the CA reasonably relied on DHY Realty's latest GIS filed on September 22, 2016 to determine its last known address.
• Substituted service under Section 8, Rule 13 — Substituted service may be made by delivering a copy of the pleading or notice to the clerk of court when personal service and service by mail cannot be made. The SC held that the CA validly allowed substituted service after personal and registered mail service on DHY Realty failed, and service was deemed complete upon delivery to the Division Clerk of Court.

• "For the avoidance of doubt, the Court now holds that the judicial review of CIAC arbitral awards takes either of two remedial routes, depending on the issue being raised. First, if the issue raised is a pure question of law, the petition should be filed directly and exclusively with the Court, notwithstanding Rule 43. Second, in cases where the petition takes issue on the integrity of the arbitral tribunal and its decision, (i.e., allegations of corruption, fraud, misconduct, evident partiality, incapacity or excess of powers within the tribunal), or the unconstitutionality or invalidity of its actions in the arbitral process then the parties can and should appeal the CIAC award before the CA under Rule 65, on grounds of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction, where a factual review may then be had by the CA." — The SC quotes its ruling in Global Medical Center on the two routes for judicial review of CIAC arbitral awards.
• "The sole object of the writ is to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The phrase 'grave abuse of discretion' has a precise meaning in law, denoting abuse of discretion 'too patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility. It does not encompass an error of law. Nor does it include a mistake in the appreciation of the contending parties' respective evidence or the evaluation of their relative weight." — The SC adopts the definition of grave abuse of discretion in Romy's Freight Service vs. Castro to explain why DHY's allegations did not meet the Rule 65 standard.
• "Delivery of initial and subsequent communications from CIAC or from the arbitral tribunal to any party whose whereabouts are unknown shall be made to his/her/its last known address by personal delivery or by courier. The communication is deemed delivered, when made in this manner, when it is duly certified to CIAC or the arbitral tribunal." — Paragraph 5 of Resolution No. 11-2010, which the SC applies to uphold service at DHY Realty's last known address.
• "Given the importance of a GIS as a corporate document and the reliability accorded to it by the courts, Wing-An, the CIAC, and the CA reasonably relied on DHY Realty's GIS to determine its last known address." — The SC rejects DHY Realty's argument that the September 22, 2016 GIS should not have been used to ascertain its address in 2017.

• Global Medical Center of Laguna, Inc. vs. Ross Systems International, Inc., G.R. No. 230112, May 11, 2021 — Controlling precedent on the modes of judicial review of CIAC arbitral awards; applied prospectively and not to appeals filed before its promulgation.
• Romy's Freight Service vs. Castro, 523 Phil. 540 (2006) — Followed for the definition of grave abuse of discretion.
• National Housing Authority vs. Court of Appeals, 413 Phil. 58 (2001) — Cited for the rule that a Rule 65 petition is not a substitute for appeal and that a motion for reconsideration is generally a prerequisite.
• Guanzon vs. Arrazada, 539 Phil. 367-376 (2006) — Cited as supporting reliance on a GIS address for purposes of serving summons.
• Ellice Agro-Industrual Corp. vs. Young, 699 Phil. 48-62 (2012) — Cited as an example of the SC relying on GIS information to ascertain corporate officers.
• Belo Medical Group, Inc. vs. Santos, 817 Phil. 363-391 (2017) — Cited as an example of the SC using GIS information to determine stockholders and whether the dispute was intracorporate.
• Querubin vs. Commission on Elections, 774 Phil. 766-846 (2015) — Cited as an example of the SC giving credence to GIS information in determining corporate nationality.
• Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Corp. vs. Goldstar Elevators Phils. Inc., 510 Phil. 467-477 (2005) — Cited for the rule that bare allegations that a corporation relocated cannot outweigh the address stated in its corporate documents.

• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Defines certiorari and its requirements: a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or plain, speedy, adequate remedy. Applied to dismiss DHY's Petition because it had appeal remedies and failed to show grave abuse.
• Section 8, Rule 13, Rules of Court — Allows substituted service when personal service and service by mail cannot be made. Applied to uphold the CA's substituted service after failed personal and registered mail service on DHY Realty.
• Sections 4.1 and 4.1.1, 2016 CIAC Rules — An arbitration clause in a construction contract is deemed an agreement to submit to CIAC jurisdiction, and parties are deemed to have submitted to the CIAC Rules. Applied because the Construction Contract contained an arbitration clause.
• Section 4.2, CIAC Rules — A respondent's failure despite due notice to arbitrate does not stay the proceedings; the CIAC may appoint arbitrators and continue, receiving the claimant's evidence. Applied when the CIAC proceeded despite DHY Realty's absence.
• Paragraph 2, Section 6.2, CIAC Rules — If the Notice to Respondent/Request to Answer is not received because of a wrong address or because the respondent moved out or cannot be found at the last known address provided by the claimant, the CIAC Secretariat shall require the claimant to provide the correct or new address within 15 days; failure to comply leads to dismissal without prejudice. Applied: the obligation did not arise because the Letter-Notice was delivered, but the CIAC nonetheless directed Wing-An to ascertain DHY's address.
• Paragraph 5, Resolution No. 11-2010 — Delivery of initial and subsequent communications to a party whose whereabouts are unknown shall be made to the last known address by personal delivery or courier, and the communication is deemed delivered when duly certified to the CIAC or arbitral tribunal. Applied to uphold service at the Makati Address.
• Rule 43, Rules of Court — At the time of filing, a CIAC arbitral award could be reviewed by the CA through a Rule 43 petition. Applied because Wing-An used Rule 43 and DHY could have used it to challenge the Final Award.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — An appeal from a CA ruling on questions of law may be filed with the SC through a petition for review on certiorari. Applied because DHY could have challenged the CA Decision and Resolution via Rule 45 instead of Rule 65.