HEIRS OF AUGUSTO L. SALAS, JR. vs. LAPERAL REALTY CORPORATIONG.R. No. 135362December 13, 1999(320 SCRA 610) FACTS: Petitioner Salas Jr. and Respondent Laperal Realty Corporation entered into anagreement for the latter to develop and provide complete construction services on formersland. Petitioner executed a special power of attorney in favor of Respondent Corporation toexercise general control, supervision and management of the sale of his land. On June 10,1989 Petitioner left his home for a business trip in Nueva Ecija but never returned again. Petitioner’s wife filed a petition for presumptive death of her husba nd after seven years of absence. The trial court granted her petition.On the otherhand, Respondent Corporation already subdivided the property owned by SalasJr. to different lot buyers. The heirs of Salas Jr. filed in the RTC of Lipa City a Complaint for nullity of sale, reconveyance, cancellation of contract and damages against Laperal RealtyCorporation and lot buyers. Laperal Realty Corporation filed a motion to dismiss on theground that the heirs of Salas Jr. failed to submit their grievance to arbitration as stated inthe agreement executed by Salas Jr. and Laperal Realty Corporation. The lot buyers alsofiled a motion to dismiss based on the same ground.
HELD: (1) A submission to arbitration is a contract. As such, the Agreement, containing thestipulation on arbitration, binds the parties thereto, as well as their assigns and heirs. Butonly they. Petitioners, as heirs of Salas Jr., and respondent Laperal Realty Corporation arecertainly bound by the agreement.(2) The arbitration agreement is valid, binding and enforceable and not contrary to publicpolicy so much so when there obtains a written provision for arbitration which is not compliedwith, the trial court should suspend the proceedings and order the parties to proceed toarbitration in accordance with the terms of their agreement. However it would be in theinterest of justice if the trial court hears the complaint against all herein respondents andadjudicates petitioners rights as against theirs in a singles and complete proceeding.The petition is granted the trial court must proceed with the hearing of the case BF CORPORATION V. CA, 288 SCRA 267 (1998) Facts: Petitioner and respondent Shangri-la Properties, Inc. entered into an agreementwhereby the latter engaged the former to construct the main structure of the "EDSA PlazaProject," a shopping mall complex in Mandaluyong. Petitioner incurred delay in the constructionwork that SPI considered as "serious and substantial."
ISSUE: (1) Whether or not the arbitration clause in the agreement between Salas Jr. andLaperal Realty binds the heirs of the former.(2) Whether or not the trial court must dismiss the case or must hear the casesimultaneously.
On the other hand, according topetitioner, the construction works "progressed in faithful compliance with the First Agreementuntil a fire broke out damaging Phase I" of the Project.
Hence, SPI proposed the re-negotiationof the agreement between them.Petitioner and SPI entered into a written agreement denominated as "Agreement for theExecution of Builder's Work for the EDSA Plaza Project." Said agreement would cover theconstruction work on said project as of May 1, 1991 until its eventual completion. According toSPI, petitioner "failed to complete the construction works and abandoned the project."
required that "Notice of the demand for arbitration of a dispute shall be filed in writing with the other party . . . . in nocase . . . . later than the time of final payment . . . "which apparently, had elapsed becausedefendants have failed to file any written notice of any demand for arbitration during the saidlong period of one year and eight months. The CA annulled the orders of the RTC. Issue: WON a petition for certiorari is proper
Thisresulted in disagreements between the parties as regards their respective liabilities under thecontract.Petitioner filed with the RTC of Pasig a complaint for collection of the balance due under the construction agreement. SPI and its co-defendants filed a motion to suspend proceedingsinstead of filing an answer. The motion was anchored on defendants' allegation that the formaltrade contract for the construction of the project provided for a clause requiring prior resort toarbitration before judicial intervention could be invoked in any dispute arising from the contract.Petitioner opposed said motion claiming that there was no formal contract between the partiesalthough they entered into an agreement defining their rights and obligations in undertaking theproject.Thereafter, upon a finding that an arbitration clause indeed exists, the lower court deniedthe motion to suspend proceedings as the Conditions of Contract was not duly executed or signed by the parties, and the failure of the defendants to submit any signed copy of the saiddocument,.The lower court then ruled that, assuming that the arbitration clause was valid andbinding, still, it was "too late in the day for defendants to invoke arbitration. Considering the factthat under the supposed Arbitration Clause invoked by defendants, it is
Held: Yes. The rule that the special civil action of certiorari may not be invoked as a substitute for the remedy of appeal. The Court has likewise ruled that " certiorari will not be issued to cure errors in proceedings or correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact. As long as a court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its jurisdiction will amount to nothing more than errors of judgment which are reviewable by timely appeal and not by a special civil action of certiorari .
