FACTS petitioners and respondents agree that these cases are of transcendental

importance as they involve the construction and operation of the country’s

Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) submitted a proposal to the DOTC for
the development of NAIA Terminal 3. After a careful examination, the
DOTC created the Prequalification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) for
the implementation of the project. PBAC however, awarded the project to
Phil. International Air Terminals Co (PIATCO). AEDC filed before the RTC of
Pasig a Petition for Nullity of the Proceedings and for Prohibition. The
other air service providers of MIAA also claimed that the awarding of the
project to PIATCO would somehow jeopardize their employment or
concession-contracts.
PIATCO commenced an arbitration proceeding before the International
Chamber of Commerce against the Gov’t of the Philippines acting through
the DOTC and MIAA and alleged that Philippine courts are without
jurisdiction to review its case against the government and that the
submission of the case to the SC is a violation of the rule on hierarchy of
courts as trial courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the SC with respect
to a special civil action for prohibition, thus, resort must first be had before
the trial courts.
premier international airport. Moreover, the crucial issues submitted for
resolution are of first impression and they entail the proper legal
interpretation of key provisions of the Constitution, the BOT Law and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations. Thus, considering the nature of the
controversy before the Court, procedural bars may be lowered to give way
for the speedy disposition of the instant cases.
It is also established that petitioners in the present case who have
presented legitimate interests in the resolution of the controversy are not
parties to the PIATCO Contracts. Accordingly, they cannot be bound by the
arbitration clause and hence, cannot be compelled to submit to arbitration
proceedings. A speedy and decisive resolution of all the critical issues in
the present controversy, including those raised by petitioners, cannot be
made before an arbitral tribunal. The object of arbitration is precisely to
allow an expeditious determination of a dispute. This objective would not
be met if this Court were to allow the parties to settle the cases by
arbitration as there are certain issues involving non-parties to the PIATCO
Contracts which the arbitral tribunal will not be equipped to resolve.

ISSUE: WON the arbitration proceedings availed of by PIATCO deprived the

SC of its jurisdiction over the case

RULING

No. After a careful examination of the facts of the case, the controversy
involves significant legal questions which the SC cannot just ignore. The
rule on the hierarchy of courts will also not prevent the SC from assuming
jurisdiction as the rule may be relaxed when the redress sought cannot be
obtained in the appropriate courts and where exceptional and compelling
reasons justify the availment of the remedy.

In the present case, It is easy to discern that exceptional circumstances

exist in the cases at bar that call for the relaxation of the rule. Both