DENR v. United Planners Consultants Inc. G.R. No. 212081, February 23, 2015 On July 26, 1993, petitioner, through the an! "anage#ent $ureau %"$&, entere! into an 'gree#ent (or )on*ultan+y er-i+e* %)on*ultan+y 'gree#ent& ith re*pon!ent /nite! lanner* )on*ultant*, n+. %re*pon!ent& in +onne+tion ith the "$* an! Re*our+e "anage#ent "a*ter lan roe+t %R""&. etitioner a* able to pay only 4 o( the total +ontra+t pri+e. For (ailure to pay it* obligation un!er the )on*ultan+y 'gree#ent !e*pite repeate! !e#an!*, re*pon!ent in*titute! a )o#plaint again*t petitioner be(ore the Regional egional 7rial )ourt )ourt o( ueon ueon )ity. /pon #otion o( re*pon! re*pon!ent, ent, the +a*e a* *ub*e *ub*e:u :uent ently ly re(er re(erre re! ! to arbitr arbitrati ation on pur*ua pur*uant nt to the the arbit arbitrat ration ion +lau* +lau*e e o( the )on*ultan+y )on*ultan+y 'gree#ent, 'gree#ent, hi+h petitioner !i! not oppo*e. ;uring ;uring the preli#i preli#inary nary +on(eren+e, +on(eren+e, the partie* partie* agree! agree! to a!opt a!opt the )') )') Re-i*e! e-i*e! Rule* ule* Go-er Go-ernin ning g )on*tr )on*tru+t u+tion ion 'rbit 'rbitrat ration ion %)') %)') Rule*& ule*& to go-er go-ern n the arbit arbitrat ration ion pro+e pro+ee!i e!ing ng*. *. 7hey 7hey (urthe (urtherr agree! agree! to *ub#i *ub#itt their their re*pe re*pe+ti +ti-e -e !ra( !ra(tt !e+i*ion* in lieu o( #e#oran!a o( argu#ent* on or be(ore 'pril 21, 2010, a#ong other* other*.. On the !ue !ue !ate !ate (or *ub#i *ub#i** **ion ion o( the !ra(t !ra(t !e+i*i !e+i*ion* on*,, hoe-e hoe-er, r, only only re*pon!ent re*pon!ent +o#plie! ith the gi-en !ea!line. 7he 'rbitral 7ribunal 7ribunal ren!ere! ren!ere! it* 'ar! 'ar! !ate! "ay , 2010 %'rbitral %'rbitral 'ar!& 'ar!& in (a-or o( re*pon!ent, !ire+ting petitioner to pay. /n+on-in+e!, petitioner oppo*ition a*
Rules of Court cannot be suppletorily to the ADR Rules
applied
A=e+ution i*
Bhile it appear* that the pe+ial ';R Rule* re#ain *ilent on the pro+e!ure (or the e=e+ution o( a +on
2
7hu*, ith the*e prin+iple* in #in!, the )ourt *o +on+lu!e* that the pe+ial ';R Rule*, a* (ar a* pra+ti+able, *houl! be #a!e to apply not only to the pro+ee!ing* on +on
Despite the nality of the conrmed nal award, the money claim is still subject to COA’s primary jurisdiction 7here i* a nee! to e=pli+ate the #atter o( e=e+ution o( the +on
3
