Undoubtedly, arbitration has become the go-to mode for resolving conflict nowadays. With court dockets clogged, arbitration has become the preferred alternative for the resolution of cases. Not only has it proven effective, it is very expeditious. This is so because after the parties set the hearing dates with the arbitral tribunal for the presentation of their respective evidence, the hearings are continuous. They are marathon, in fact, taking the whole day if the parties agree. So you have an arbitral panel, which hears only one case — your case.

This setup is quite different from the regular courts where there are many cases lined up for the day. In the courts, the time for the reception of evidence is divided among the number of cases to be heard that day. So if the court only hears cases in the morning, say from eight until noon, and there are eight cases to be heard, each case can be heard for only 30 minutes.

If a party needs an hour to present its evidence in the 30 minutes allotted to it, they will have to continue the presentation on another date. The continuance can be set a month or two after since many other cases have been scheduled after the day’s presentation.

So here you see why it takes quite some time for courts to resolve cases. It is not the courts’ fault. It is the sheer number of cases pending with them. The more cases a court has, the more cases it has to schedule per day. Thus, less time is allocated to each case. Not so in arbitration. One panel, one case. Thus, cases move faster.

In one case, the complainant sued the defendant, a contractor, for breach of contract in the construction of her house. She filed the case with the regular court — the Regional Trial Court. The court, however, dismissed her case. It said that since it was a construction contract, it had no jurisdiction over it. Rather, the case should be lodged in the CIAC — the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, the body that has jurisdiction over construction cases.

The complainant filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds that the CIAC would have jurisdiction over the case only if the parties agreed to submit to arbitration. In her case, there was no such agreement, and thus the regular court should take cognizance of the case.

The court did not heed her plea. Having been thumbed down, the complainant went straight to the Supreme Court. While the usual procedure is for an aggrieved party to first go to the Court of Appeals, the complainant argued there were exceptions — one of which was when the issue was purely a matter of law — which her case was.

In resolving her issue, the Supreme Court had this to say: “From a procedural standpoint, the Court affirms the remedy of availed by petitioner via an appeal by certiorari under a Rule 45 petition directly filed with the Court. Under Rule 41, Section 2(c), the appeal from a judgment of the RTC must be lodged with the Supreme Court by a Rule 45 petition ‘[i]n all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved.’ Unquestionably, the issue of determining jurisdiction over a subject matter is a question of law, which snugly falls within this Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

While the usual procedure is for an aggrieved party to first go to the Court of Appeals, the complainant argued there were exceptions — one of which was when the issue was purely a matter of law — which her case was.

“On the merits, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition.”

It is well settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and not “by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists.”

The jurisdiction of the CIAC is laid down in Section 4 of EO No. 1008:

Section 4. Jurisdiction — The CIAC shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from, or connected with, contracts entered into by parties involved in construction in the Philippines, whether the dispute arises before or after the completion of the contract, or after the abandonment or breach thereof. These disputes may involve government or private contracts. For the Board to acquire jurisdiction, the parties to a dispute must agree to submit the same to voluntary arbitration....

Unarguably, the foregoing section provides that when the dispute involves a construction agreement, the law vests jurisdiction with the CIAC so long as the “the parties agree to submit to voluntary arbitration.” In fact, the mere incorporation of an arbitration clause in a construction contract is sufficient to vest the CIAC with jurisdiction. The clause operates as the parties’ consent as required by the law, and may not be subjected to any condition or qualification.

This Court has recognized the pivotal role that the CIAC plays in the swift settlement of construction controversies and has adopted policies to ensure that the adjudicative body is “empowered and enabled to fulfill its function as the professionally authoritative venue for settlement of construction disputes.”

Indeed, the complainant was correct. While the issue could have been resolved by the CIAC, it being about construction, still the regular court had jurisdiction over it in the absence of consent to arbitration by the parties. So, take note that in order for you to have your disputes in construction be resolved by the CIAC, always have that arbitration stipulation in your contract. Once you have that, you will have your case move and resolved faster than usual.

The facts and quoted portion of the decision are from Karen Baldovino Chua v. Jose Noel B. De Castro (G.R. 235894, 5 February 2024).