FORT FOR T BONIF BONIFACIO DEVELO DEVELOPMENT PMENT CORPORA CORPORATION TION vs. HON. HON. EDWIN D. SORONGON SORONGON and VALENTIN ALENTIN FONG (2009) •
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
Petitioner Petitioner Fort Bonifacio Development Development Corp is a corporation corporation registered registered under Philippine Philippine laws and is engaged in the business of real estate development. Respondent, Valentin Fong (respondent doing business under the name VF !ndustrial "ales is the assignee of # $ % %a&co "pecialist Construction's Construction's (%a&co retention mone from the Bonifacio Ridge Condominium Condominium Phase ) (BRCP ). Ma&$ wherein %a&co would undertae *n +ul --- --- P!"#"#$n!% !n"!%!d #n"$ a "%ad! &$n"%a&" '#" Ma&$ wherein the structural and partial architectural pacage of the BRCP ). #ater petitioner accused %a&co of dela in completion completion of its wor and on /ugust 0, --0 sent the latter a n$"#&! $* "!%+#na"#$n. "!%+#na"#$n . o Petitioner also instructed %a&co to perform remedial measures prior to the contract e&piration pursuant to Clause 1.) of the contract. &%!d#"$%s including respondent for debts ,n%!/a"!d to ,n%!/a"!d to BRCP ). "ubse2uentl, Ma&$ 'as s,!d - #"s &%!d#"$%s including %!&!#va-/!s representing !n order to settle the collection suit, on Februar 3, --4, Ma&$ ass#n!d #"s %!&!#va-/!s representing its retention mone from the BRCP ) in the amount of one million 5ve hundred sevent seven thousand one hundred 5fteen pesos and ninet centavos (P),466,))4.7-. *n /pril )3, --4, respondent (a CR8D!9*R of %/:C* wrote to petitioner, informing the latter of %a&co's assignment in his favor and asing the latter to con5rm the validit of %a&co's receivables. Petitioner replied, informing the respondent that %a&co did have receivables, however these were not due and demandable until +anuar of ne&t ear, moreover the amount had to be ascertained and li2uidated. / subse2uent e&change of correspondence failed to settle the matter. petitioner wrote respondent informing the latter that there is no more amount due to %a&co from o petitioner after the recti5cation of defect as well as the satisfaction of notices of garnishment dated +ul 1-, --0 and +anuar ;, --;. +$n! against petitioner and %a&co R9C Respondent 5led a &$+1/a#n" *$% a s,+ $* +$n! against R9C %andaluong Cit. Cit. o Respondent claimed that there were suect of the deed of assignment. o Petitioner however, paid out the retention mone to other garnishing creditors of %a&co to the detriment of respondent. petitioner 5led a %otion to Dismiss on the ground of lac of >urisdiction over the sub>ect matter. Petitioner argued that since respondent respondent merel stepped into the shoes of %a&co as its assignee, it o was the C!/C and not the regular courts that had >urisdiction over the dispute as provided in the 9rade 9rade Contract. Contract.
R9C? R9C? +udge 8dwin "orongon? D8@!8D petitioner's motion to dismiss. %R also D8@!8D. Petitioner 5led a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of /ppeals. Court of /ppeals? D8@!8D petition for certiorari and prohibition for lac of merit. appellate court held that it was the trial court and not the Construction !ndustr /rbitration o Commission (C!/C that had >urisdiction over the claims of Valentin Fong. 9he claim could not be construed as related to the construction industr as it is for enforcement of %a&co's deed of assignment over its retention mone. %R to C/ D8@!8D. ISSE345 '#& as 6,%#sd#&"#$n 6,%#sd#&"#$n 5 RTC RTC $% CIAC7 HELD5 RTC. RTC. 9he ad>udic ad>udicatio ation n of Civil Civil Case necessaril necessaril involves involves the applicati application on of pertinen pertinentt statutes statutes and >urisprudence >urisprudence to matters of assignment assignment and preference preference of credits. /s this Court held in Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. Domingo, "#s task +$%! s,#"!d *$% a "%#a/ &$,%" "$ &a%% $," a*"!% a *,//8 -/$'n "%#a/ "an an a%-#"%a"#$n -$d s1!&#&a// d!v$"!d "$ &$ns"%,&"#$n &$n"%a&"s. RATIO5
+urisdiction is de5ned as the authorit to tr, hear and decide a case. A)) %oreover, that >urisdiction of the court over the sub>ect matter is determined b the allegations of the complaint without regard to whether or not the plainti= is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein is a well entrenched principle. A) !n this regard, the >urisdiction of the court does not depend upon the defenses pleaded in the answer or in the motion to dismiss, lest the 2uestion of >urisdiction would almost entirel depend upon the defendant. /n e&amination of the allegations in Fong's complaint reveals that his &a,s! $* a&"#$n s1%#ns NOT *%$+ a v#$/a"#$n $* "! 1%$v#s#$ns $* "! T%ad! C$n"%a&", but from the assignment of %a&co's retention mone to him and failure of petitioner to turn over the retention mone. 9he allegations in Fong's Complaint are clear and simple? () 9hat %a&co had an outstanding obligation to respondent ( %a&co assigned to Fong its retention from petitioner in pament of the said obligation, (1 Petitioner as earl as /pril )3, --4 was noti5ed of the assignment (0 Despite due notice of such assignment, petitioner still refused to deliver the amount assigned to respondent, giving preference, instead, to the other creditors of %a&co (4 /t the time petitioner was noti5ed of the assignment, there were onl one other notice of garnishment and there were suusti5ed preference to the claims of the other creditors of %a&co over the retention mone. /lthough the >urisdiction of the C!/C is not limited to the instances enumerated in "ection 0 of 8. *. @o. )--3 ), Fong's claim is not even constructionrelated at all. 9his court has held that? GConstruction is de5ned as referring to all onsite wors on buildings or altering structures, from land clearance through completion including e&cavation, erection and assembl and installation of components and e2uipment.H 9hus, petitioner's insistence on the application of the arbitration clause of the 9rade Contract to Fong is clearl anchored on an erroneous premise that the latter is seeing to enforce a right under the trade contract. 9his premise cannot stand since the right to the retention mone of %a&co under the 9rade Contract is not being impugned herein. !t bears mentioning that petitioner readil conceded the e&istence of the retention mone. Fong's demand that the portion of retention mone should have been paid to him before the other creditors of %a&co clearl, does not re2uire the C!/C's e&pertise and technical nowledge of construction. 9he ad>udication of Civil Case necessaril involves the application of pertinent statutes and >urisprudence to matters of assignment and preference of credits. /s this Court held in Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. Domingo, this task more suited for a trial court to carr out after a fullblown trial, than an arbitration bod speci5call devoted to construction contracts. Iss,!325 '!"!% %!s1$nd!n":s &$+1/a#n" *a#/!d "$ s"a"! a &a,s! $* a&"#$n HELD5 NO. COA #s 1%!s!n" #n "! &$+1/a#n". Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insu
) SECTION 4. Jurisdiction.—The CIAC shall have original and exclusive j urisdiction over disputes arising fro! or connected "ith! contracts entered into #$ parties involved in construction in the %hilippines! "hether the dispute arises #efore or after the copletion of the contract! or after the a#andonent or #reach thereof. These disputes a$ involve governent or private contracts. &or the 'oard to ac(uire jurisdiction! the parties to a dispute ust agree to su#it the sae to voluntar$ ar#itration.The jurisdiction of the CIAC a$ include #ut is not liited to violation of specifications for aterials and "or)anship* violation of the ters of agreeent* interpretation and+or application of contractual provisions* aintenance and defects* pa$ent default of eplo$er or contractor and changes in contract cost. Excluded fro the coverage of this la" are disputes arising fro eplo$er,eplo$ee relationships "hich shall continue to #e covered #$ the -a#or Code of the %hilippines.
considered. 9he test is whether the court can render a valid >udgment on the complaint based on the facts alleged and the praer ased for. !n this case the complaint alleges that? & & & at the time he served notice of assignment to defendant FBDC there was onl one notice of garnishment that the latter had received and there were still suudice of his rights. !""I8J1? whether respondent's claim has been e&tinguished b pament to the other garnishing creditors of %/:C*K 8#D? 9he assignment of this as an error is misleading as this is precisel one of the issues that
need to be resolved in a full blown trial and one of the reasons that respondent impleaded %a&co and petitioner in the alternative. !""I8J0? whether other creditors and the R9C that issued the writ of garnishment should have been impleaded as defendants 8#D? @o. the are not indispensable parties. "ection 6, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court provides for the compulsor >oinder of indispensable parties without whom no 5nal determination can be had of an action. /n indispensable part is de5ned as one who has such an interest in the controvers or sub>ect matter that a 5nal ad>udication cannot be made, in his absence, without in>uring or a=ecting that interest. A)3 9he other >udgment creditors are entitled to the fruits of the 5nal >udgments rendered in their favor. 9heir rights are distinct from the rights ac2uired b the respondent over the portion of the retention mone assigned to the latter b %a&co. 9heir interests are in no wa a=ected b an >udgment to be rendered in this case. D!"P*"!9!V8? Petition is DENIED.
