DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The
Decision dated July 23, 2020, and the Resolution dated November 26,
2020, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 162597 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as they nullified the Order dated
August 2, 2019, the Resolution dated September 5, 2019, and the Writ of
Execution dated September 2, 2019, issued by the Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission in CIAC Case No. 27-2018.
The Order dated August 2, 2019, the Resolution dated September
5, 2019, and the Writ of Execution dated September 2, 2019 issued by the
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission in CIAC Case No. 27-
2018 are REINSTATED, but MODIFIED in that respondent Prudential
Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. shall be solidarily liable with Furacon
Builders, Inc. to petitioner Playinn, Inc. only to the extent of the
performance bond it issued in favor ofFuracon Builders, Inc.
SO ORDERED.
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT Prudential’s liapility under the surety bond
automatically arose from the moment when Furacon failed to .
the construction of the project and did not require an adjudication by the
CIAC. NOT CORRECT. THE REASON WHY PETITIONER FILED THE CASE IS TO HAVE THEIR CLAIM AGAINST PRUDENTIAL ADJUDICATED.
Playinn is clutching at straws. The stated policy and objective of the
Revised CIAC Rules is to provide a fair and expeditious resolution of
disputes as an alternative to judicial proceedings. 119 In this regard, an
arbitration clause in a construction contract or a submission to arbitration
of a construction dispute shall be deemed an agreement to submit an
existing or future controversy to CIAC jurisdiction. 120 This is precisely
why Playinn filed a Request for Arbitration/Complaint121 against Furacon
and Prudential before the CIAC when its demands to the latter went
unheeded. Thus, to say that Prudential’s liapility under the surety bond
automatically arose from the moment when Furacon failed to complete
the construction of the project and did not require an adjudication by the
CIAC for it to attach goes against the very reason why it filed the
complaint in the first place.
IN THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE CIAC DECISION PRUDENTIAL IS LIABLE ONLY UNDER THE PERFORMANCE BOND. IN THE WRT OF EXECUTION PRUDENTIAL WAS MADE LIABLE FOR SURETY BOND AND PERFORMANCE BOND. THIS IS NOT CORRECT. THE WRIT MUST CONFORM TO THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE DECISION.
Corollarily, it 1s a settled general principle that
“a writ of execution must conform substantially to every essential
particular of the judgment promulgated. Execution not in harmony with
the judgment is bereft of validity. It must conform, more particularly, to
that ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision.” 122
Corollary thereto, the Court, in National Power Corp. v. Tarcelo, 123
explained that an order of execution is based on the disposition, and not
on the body of the decision. …………
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 