The Construction Arbitration Law

The portion of the forum tackled the Construction Arbitration Law, presented by Archt. Felicitas A. Pio Roda, President & CEO - ASIAN TECHNICON Managers & Consultants, Inc.

She started the topic by enumerating the disadvantages of putting into motion dispute resolutions between parties during the design and construction period. These are:
1. High costs, in paying lawyers and going to court hearings;
2. Judicial Delay, or what she mentioned as "intergenerational justice", wherein the resolution of a case takes years, and even generations to solve;
3. The difficulty of using jargons, resulting in an incomprehensible process;
4. Unsuitability of Adjudication (Sorry, I did not get this. In any case, refer to number 3. =) ).

Because of these disadvantages, dispute resolutions are avoided, and there is a need for an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to protect not just the designers, but also the contractors of a project. There are three forms of dispute resolutions, namely:
1. Negotiation - the simplest form of agreement;
2. Conciliation and Mediation - there is the presence of a neutral third party;
3. Arbitration - the case is brought up to the Construction Arbitration Commission, and further carried on as a judicial case.

Archt. Roda then proceeded by showing a comparison between Conciliation and Arbitration, showing that the former is less taxing than the latter:

Conciliation and Mediation vs. Arbitration
1. Informal Formal
2. Personal Fact Oriented
3. Reconciliation Punitive (punishment)
4. Interpersonal Evidence based / facts
5. Persuasion Compulsion
6. Allows separate conference between No separate conference
parties
7. No court hearing Trial
8. Win - win situation Win - lose situation

Conciliation therefore is better used that arbitration due to the "win-win situation" scenario that are generated during the negotiations.

Whew, ang formal ng report. Luckily, the mood became lighter when Archt. Bobby Mañosa shared an annecdote wherein he went to court along with a client who failed to pay him for some time. He said that as they approached the stand, the judge asked them. "Who is the architect? who is the client?"
"Who owns this signature, is it not yours? (points to the client showing a contract signed by both architect)" After imitating the owner, Mañosa finally said "If that's the case, pay him (the architect)." I guess it must be Mañosa's light demeanor and the way he delivered the annecdote that got the message across.

So much experience for them, so much for us to learn. Carry on.

The talk show continues....