Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GAMMON PHILIPPINES v. METRO RAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 176535 2011-09-07	NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. FIRST UNITED CONSTRUCTORS CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
We need not belabor this issue any further. As the appellate court correctly points out, we have already categorically ruled in Gammon Philippines, Inc. vs. Metro Rail Transit,[213] that there is no basis for the exclusion of claims for business losses from the jurisdiction of CIAC because Executive Order No. 1008 (EO 1008), the law that created the CIAC, "excludes from the coverage of the law only those disputes arising from employer-employee relationships which are covered by the Labor Code, conveying an intention to encompass a broad range of arbitrable issues within the jurisdiction of CIAC."
	GR No. 180640 2009-04-24	HUTAMA-RSEA JOINT OPERATIONS v. CITRA METRO MANILA TOLLWAYS CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, the CIAC was created in recognition of the contribution of the construction industry to national development goals. Realizing that delays in the resolution of construction industry disputes would also hold up the development of the country, Executive Order No. 1008 expressly mandates the CIAC to expeditiously settle construction industry disputes and, for this purpose, vests in the CIAC original and exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from, or connected with, contracts entered into by the parties involved in construction in the Philippines.[30]
	GR No. 180765 2009-02-27	FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. MANUEL N. DOMINGO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Respondent's claim is not even construction-related at all. Construction is defined as referring to all on-site works on buildings or altering structures, from land clearance through completion including excavation, erection and assembly and installation of components and equipment.[13] Petitioner's insistence on the application of the arbitration clause of the Trade Contract to respondent is clearly anchored on an erroneous premise that respondent is seeking to enforce a right under the same. Again, the right to the receivables of LMM Construction from petitioner under the Trade Contract is not being impugned herein. In fact, petitioner readily conceded that LMM Construction still had receivables due from petitioner, and respondent did not even have to refer to a single provision in the Trade Contract to assert his claim. What respondent is demanding is that a portion of such receivables amounting to P804,068.21 should have been paid to him first before the other creditors of LMM Construction, which, clearly, does not require the CIAC's expertise and technical knowledge of construction.