This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-04-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The instant Petitions for Review on Certiorari, both filed under Rule 45, arose from CIAC Case No. 07-2004 entitled Dynamic Planners & Construction Corporation v. Hanjin Heavy Industries & Construction Co., Ltd., a request for arbitration initiated by Dynamic before the CIAC. On September 7, 2004, the CIAC rendered a decision denominated as Final Award,[1] allowing and ordering payment of most of Dynamic's claims, albeit on lowered amounts. Therefrom, both parties appealed to the CA, Dynamic's appeal docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 86641, while that of Hanjin's as CA-G.R. SP No. 86633. The separate appeals were eventually raffled to and resolved by different divisions of the CA. | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Significantly, jurisprudence teaches that mathematical computations as well as the propriety of the arbitral awards are factual determinations.[30] And just as significant is that the factual findings of the CIAC and CA--in each separate appealed decisions--practically dovetail with each other. The perceptible essential difference, at least insofar as the CIAC's Final Award and the CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 86641 are concerned, rests merely on mathematical computations or adjustments of baseline amounts which the CIAC may have inadvertently utilized. | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| An award of attorney's fees being the exception,[56] some compelling legal reason must obtain to bring the case within the exception and justify such award. In the case at bench, there is a categorical finding by the CIAC and CA that Hanjin's refusal to satisfy Dynamic's just claims amounted to gross and evident bad faith. This to us presents the justifying ingredient for the award of attorney's fees. Accordingly, we affirm the award of attorney's fees in CA-G.R. SP No. 86641 to Dynamic in the amount of PhP 500,000. | |||||