NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION (NIA) vs.

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (4th Division),

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION COMMISSION,
and HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION

 Issue:
Whether the CIAC has jurisdiction
 Ruling:
Executive Order No. 1008, otherwise known as the "Construction Industry Arbitration Law"
which was promulgated on 4 February 1985, vests upon CIAC 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. The 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. The complaint of HYDRO
against NIA on the basis of the contract executed between them was filed on 7 December
1994, during the effectivity of E.O. No. 1008. Hence, it is well within the jurisdiction of CIAC.
The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the law in force at the time of the
commencement of the action.
J Plus Development Asia Corporation
v. Utility AssuranceCorporation

 Issue:
Whether RA 9285 divest the Court of Appeals of its power to review decisions or
awards of the CIAC.
 Ruling:
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9285, otherwise known as the Alternative Dispute
Resolution Act of 2004, the CA was divested of jurisdiction to review the decisions
or awards of the CIAC. Petitioner erroneously relied on the provision in said law
allowing any party to a domestic arbitration to file in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
a petition either to confirm, correct or vacate a domestic arbitral award.
A CIAC arbitral award need not be confirmed by the regional trial court to be
executory as provided under E.O. No. 1008
 Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc.,
vs. Spouses Stroem
 Issue:
Is a dispute involving the liability of a surety under a performance bond connected to a construction
contract within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CIAC?
 Ruling:
The performance bond was not part of the Owners-Contractor Agreement.
Applying the “complementary-contracts-construed-together” doctrine, this court in Prudential held that
the surety willingly acceded to the terms of the construction contract despite the silence of the
performance bond as to arbitration:
In the case at bar, the performance bond was silent with regard to arbitration. On the other hand, the
construction contract was clear as to arbitration in the event of disputes. Applying the said doctrine, we
rule that the silence of the accessory contract in this case could only be construed as acquiescence to
the main contract. The construction contract breathes life into the performance bond. We are not
ready to assume that the performance bond contains reservations with regard to some of the terms and
conditions in the construction contract where in fact it is silent. On the other hand, it is more reasonable
to assume that the party who issued the performance bond carefully and meticulously studied the
construction contract that it guaranteed, and if it had reservations, it would have and should have
mentioned them in the surety contract.