UNIWIDE SALES REALTY AND RESOURCES CORP v.
TITAN-IKEDA CONSTRUCTION hereby notified that [Uniwide] Sales Realty and Resources Corporation has assumed
G.R. No. 126619; December 20, 2006
FACTS:
The case originated from an action for a sum of money filed by Titan-Ikeda Construction
and Development Corporation (Titan) against Uniwide Sales Realty and Resources
Corporation (Uniwide) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 119, Pasay City
arising from Uniwides non-payment of certain claims billed by Titan after completion of
three projects covered by agreements they entered into with each other.
Upon Uniwides motion to dismiss/suspend proceedings and Titans open court
manifestation agreeing to the suspension, Civil Case No. 98-0814 was suspended for it to
undergo arbitration. Titans complaint was thus re-filed with the CIAC. Before the CIAC,
Uniwide filed an answer which was later amended and re-amended, denying the material
allegations of the complaint, with counterclaims for refund of overpayments, actual and
exemplary damages, and attorneys fees.
An Arbitral Tribunal consisting of a chairman and two members was created in
accordance with the CIAC Rules of Procedure Governing Construction Arbitration. It
conducted a preliminary conference with the parties and thereafter issued a Terms of
Reference (TOR) which was signed by the parties. The tribunal also conducted an ocular
inspection, hearings, and received the evidence of the parties consisting of affidavits
which were subject to cross-examination.
On 17 April 1995, the Arbitral Tribunal promulgated a Decision, the decretal portion of
which is as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
On Project 1 Libis:
[Uniwide] is absolved of any liability for the claims made by [Titan] on this Project.
Project 2 Edsa Central:
[Uniwide] is absolved of any liability for VAT payment on this project, the same
being for the account of the [Titan]. On the other hand, [Titan] is absolved of any liability
on the counterclaim for defective construction of this project.
[Uniwide] is held liable for the unpaid balance in the amount of P6,301,075.77
which is ordered to be paid to the [Titan] with 12% interest per annum commencing from
19 December 1992 until the date of payment.
On Project 3 Kalookan:
[Uniwide] is held liable for the unpaid balance in the amount of P5,158,364.63
which is ordered to be paid to the [Titan] with 12% interest per annum commencing from
08 September 1993 until the date of payment.
[Uniwide] is held liable to pay in full the VAT on this project, in such amount as may
be computed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue to be paid directly thereto. The BIR is
responsibility and is held liable for VAT payment on this project. This accordingly exempts
Claimant Titan-Ikeda Construction and Development Corporation from this obligation.
ISSUE: Whether the award given by CIAC is final
HELD:
As a rule, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have
acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally
accorded not only respect, but also finality, especially when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. In particular, factual findings of construction arbitrators are final and conclusive
and not reviewable by this Court on appeal. This rule, however admits of certain
exceptions.
In David v. Construction Industry and Arbitration Commission, we ruled that, as
exceptions, factual findings of construction arbitrators may be reviewed by this Court
when the petitioner proves affirmatively that:
(1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means;
(2) there was evident partiality or corruption of the arbitrators or of any of them; (3) the
arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material
to the controversy;
(4) one or more of the arbitrators were disqualified to act as such under Section nine of
Republic Act No. 876 and willfully refrained from disclosing such disqualifications or of
any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been materially prejudiced;
or
(5) the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them, that a mutual,
final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted to them was not made.
Other recognized exceptions are as follows:
(1) when there is a very clear showing of grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack or
loss of jurisdiction as when a party was deprived of a fair opportunity to present its
position before the Arbitral Tribunal or when an award is obtained through fraud or the
corruption of arbitrators,
(2) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the CIAC, and
(3) when a party is deprived of administrative due process.
PEOPLE VS. YATAR (2004)
FACTS:
On June 30, 1998, Kathylyn Uba stayed in her grandmother (Isabel Dawangs) house,
despite her intention to go forth Tuguegarao City, as her other former housemate-
relatives left in the morning. At 10:00 am, accused-appellant Joel Yatar was seen at the
back of the same house where Kathylyn stayed during said date. At 12:30 pm, Judilyn,
Kathylyns first cousin saw Yatar, who was then wearing a white shirt with collar and
black pants, descended from the second floor and was pacing back and forth at the back
of Isabel Dawangs house, Judilyn didnt find this unusual since Yatar and his wife used to
live therein. At 1:30 PM, Yatar called upon Judilyn, telling the latter that he would not be
getting the lumber he had been gathering. This time, Judilyn noticed that Yatar is now
wearing a black shirt (without collar) and blue pants; and noticed that the latters eyes
werereddish and sharp. Accused-appellant asked about the whereabouts of Judilyns
husband, as the former purports to talk with the latter. Then, Yatar immediately left when
Judilyns husband arrived. In the evening, when Isabel Dawang arrived home, she found
the lights of her house turned off, the door of the ground floor opened, and the containers,
which she asked Kathylyn to fill up, were still empty. Upon ascending the second floor to
check whether the teenage girl is upstairs, Isabel found that the door therein was tied
with rope. When Isabel succeeded opening the tied door with a knife, and as she groped
in the darkness of the second level of her house, she felt Kathylyns lifeless and naked
body, with some intestines protruding out from it. Soon after, police came to the scene of
the crime to provide assistance. Therein, they found Kathylyns clothes and
undergarments beside her body. Amongst others, a white collared shirt splattered with
blood was also found 50-meters away from Isabels house. Meanwhile, semen has also
been found upon examination of Kathylyns cadaver. When subjected under DNA testing,
results showed that the DNA comprising the sperm specimen is identical to Yatars
genotype. Yatar was accused of the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide and was
convicted for the same by the Regional Trial Court of Tabuk, Kalinga. Thereafter, he made
an appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court in order to assail the court a quos decision. On
appeal, Yatar avers that: (1) the trial court erred in giving much weight to the evidence
DNA testing or analysis done on him, in lieu of the seminal fluid found inside the victims
(cadaver) vaginal canal; (2) the blood sample taken from is violative of his constitutional
right against self-incrimination; and the conduct of DNA testing is also in violation on
prohibition against ex-post facto laws.
MAIN ISSUE
Whether or not the result of the DNA testing done on the sperm specimen may be used as
evidence for Yatars conviction?
HELD: Noteworthy is the fact this case was decided on 2004, which was three (3) years
before the Rules on DNA evidence took effect. The Supreme Court in this case ruled based
on the US case of Daubert vs. Merrell Dow as a precedent. In the said US jurisprudence, it
was ruled that pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be used, so
long as the same is RELEVANT and RELIABLE. Hence, it was called then as the
DAUBERT TEST.
RULE:
At present, SECTION 7, RULES ON DNA EVIDENCE may be used as the legal basis. Sec. 7 of
the Rules on DNA evidence, which took effect on 2007, provides for the factors to be
considered in assessing the probative weight or value to be given on evidence derived or
generated from DNA testing. Such factors, are, to wit:
(a) The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how
they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples; (b) The
DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance
with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests; (c) The forensic
DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable standards-setting
institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If the
laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory in
forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established; and (d) The
reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.
APPLICATION
DAUBERT TEST:
The Honorable Supreme Court in this case upheld the probative value of the DNA test
result yielded from the analysis of Yatars blood sample from that of the semen specimen
obtained from the cadavers vaginal canal. Accordingly, it held that the DNA evidence is
both reliable and relevant.
In ascertaining the relevance of the evidence in a case, it must be determined whether
or not the same directly relates to a fact in issue, as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence. In this case, the evidence is relevant in determining the perpetrator of the
crime;
In giving probative value on the DNA testing result, yielded from the analysis of Yatars
blood sample from that of the biological sample (semen) obtained from the victims
vaginal canal, the trial court considered the qualification of the DNA analyst, the facility or
laboratory in which the DNA testing had been performed, and the methodology used in
performing the DNA test. In the said case, the DNA test was done at the UP National
Science Research Institute (NSRI)
. The method used was Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification method by Short
Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis, which enables a tiny amount of DNA sequence to be
replicated exponentially in a span of few hours. Hence, sufficient DNA analysis may be
made easier even with small DNA samples at hand. The analyst who performed the
procedure was Dr. Maria Corazon Abogado de Ungria, who is a duly qualified expert
witness on DNA print or identification techniques.
CONCLUSION: Hence, apart from the other sets of circumstantial evidence correctly
appreciated by the trial court, the said DNA evidence is sufficient to be admitted as
evidence to warrant the accused-appellants conviction of the crime of Rape with
Homicide.