FACTS :

National Steel Corporation filed a special civil action petition for certiorari raying to issue TRO and Preliminary Injunction to enjoin the RTC of Lanao del Norte,

Branch 2, Iligan City, to execute the confirmed awards given by arbitration committee. The herein petitioner and the private respondent together with Ramiro construction entered into a contract whereby the former jointly undertook the Contract for Site Development for the latter's Integrated Iron and Steel Mills Complex to be established at Iligan City. Ramiro terminated its services to the private respondent EWEI. As a result thereof, the termination of the construction had been extended and the same was granted by the herein petitioner, NSP. Eventually, the dispute and disagreement arose between the parties, the private respondent in herein case (EWIE) filed civil case and its prayer was to pay the latter for damages. NSP also filed its answer with counterclaim. RTC dismissed the motion and the complaint viewing sec 9 of the contract which they entered that conflict arising from them should be resolved through arbitration. The arbitrators rendered their decision holding the NSC to pay EWEI. The confirmation of arbitration award was filed to RTC of lanao and the latter was affirmed and confirmed by the same. The special complaint of vacating the award filed by the oppose party was dismissed by the same court. Whether or not the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion in not vacating the arbitrator's award? RULINGS: The Lower Court did not gravely abuse its discretion by not vacating the awards. However, the Supreme Court only modified the award. The herein petition failed to substantiate that there was evident partiality. the complaining party has the burden of proving the existence of any of the grounds for vacating the award, as provided for by Sections 24 of the Arbitration Law, to wit: Sec. 24 GROUNDS FOR VACATING THE AWARD In any one of the following cases, the court must make an order vacating the award upon

the petition of any party to the controversy when such party proves affirmatively that in the arbitration proceedings: (a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means;

(b) That there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators of any of them; or (c) That the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; that one or more of the arbitrators was disqualified to act as such under section nine hereof, and wilfully refrained from disclosing such disqualification or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been materially prejudiced; or (d) That 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. The grounds relied upon by the petitioner were the following (a) That there was evident partiality in the assailed decision of the Arbitrators in favor of the respondent; and (b) That there was mistaken appreciation of the facts and application of the law by the Arbitrators. These were the very same grounds alleged by NSC before the trial court in their Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award and which petitioner is reiterating in this petition under scrutiny . Petitioner's allegation that there was evident partiality is untenable. It is anemic of evidentiary support. If Petitioner seeks to refute such evidence, it should have done so before the Board of Arbitrators, during the hearings. To raise the issue now is futile.