Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ADR- CASES
Third Parties to Arbitration Agreement
1. Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. v. United Coconut Planters Bank
General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 189563, April 7, 2014
Facts:
On September 15, 1999, One Virtual placed with GILAT a purchase order for
various telecommunications equipment (sic), accessories, spares, services and
software, at a total purchase price of Two Million One Hundred Twenty Eight
Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars (US$2,128,250.00). Of the said purchase price
for the goods delivered, One Virtual promised to pay a portion thereof totaling
US$1.2 Million in accordance with the payment schedule dated 22 November
1999. To ensure the prompt payment of this amount, it obtained defendant
UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. 's surety bond dated 3 December 1999, in favor
of GILAT.
During the period between September 1999 and June 2000, GILAT shipped and
delivered to One Virtual the purchased products and equipment, as evidenced by
airway bills/Bill of Lading. All of the equipment (including the software
components for which payment was secured by the surety bond, was shipped by
GILAT and duly received by One Virtual.
One Virtual failed to pay GILAT the amount of (US$400,000.00) on the due
date of May 30, 2000 in accordance with the payment scheduled prompting GILA
T to write the surety defendant UCPB on June 5, 2000, a demand letter for
payment of the said amount of US$400,000.00. No part of the amount set forth in
this demand has been paid to date by either One Virtual or defendant UCPB.
One Virtual likewise failed to pay on the succeeding payment installment date of
30 November 2000 prompting GILAT to send a second demand letter dated
January 24, 2001, for the payment of the full amount of US$1,200,000.00
guaranteed under the surety bond, plus interests and expenses and which letter
was received by the defendant surety on January 25, 2001. However, defendant
UCPB failed to settle the amount of US$1,200,000.00 or a part thereof, hence, the
instant complaint.
RTC- rendered decision in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant
SC- Plaintiff-appellant Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd., and One Virtual are ordered
to proceed to arbitration, the outcome of which shall necessary bind the parties,
including the surety, defendant-appellant United Coconut Planters Bank General
Insurance Co., Inc.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the case and ordering petitioner
and One Virtual to arbitrate.
RULLING:
YES,
The assailed Decision and
REVERSED
The decision of RTC is reinstated.
Resolution
of
the Court
of Appeals are
proceedings in Civil Case No. 2637-MN pending the return of the arbitral award
could be called for but only as to petitioners DMC-USA and Paul E. Derby, Jr., and
private respondents MMI and LILY SY, and not as to the other parties in this case
The object of arbitration is to allow the expeditious determination of a
dispute. Clearly, the issue before us could not be speedily and efficiently resolved
in its entirety if we allow simultaneous arbitration proceedings and trial, or
suspension of trial pending arbitration. Accordingly, the interest of justice would
only be served if the trial court hears and adjudicates the case in a single and
complete proceeding.
The petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the
Order of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Metro Manila, in which denied
petitioners Motion to Suspend Proceedings, is AFFIRMED
3 Heirs of Augusto L. Salas, Jr. vs. Laperal Realty Corporation, et al.,
320 SCRA 610, G.R. No. 135362, December 13, 1999
Facts:
Salas Jr. was the registered owner of a vast tract of land in Lipa City,
Batangas spanning 1,484,354 square meters. On May 15, 1987, he entered into
an Owner-Contractor Agreement with respondent Laperal Realty Corporation to
render and provide complete (horizontal) construction services on his land. On
September 23, 1988, Salas, Jr. executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of
respondent Laperal Realty to exercise general control, supervision and
management of the sale of his land, for cash or on installment basis. On June 10,
1989, Salas, Jr. left his home in the morning for a business trip to Nueva Ecija. He
never returned. After 7 years, Teresita Diaz Salas filed with the Regional Trial Court
of Makati City a verified petition for the declaration of presumptive death of her
husband, Salas, Jr., who had then been missing for more than seven (7) years. It
was granted on December 12, 1996.
Meantime, respondent Laperal Realty subdivided the land of Salas, Jr. and
sold subdivided portions thereof to respondents Rockway Real Estate Corporation
and South Ridge Village, Inc.; to respondent spouses Abrajano and Lava and Oscar
Dacillo; and to respondents Eduardo Vacuna, Florante de la Cruz and Jesus Vicente
Capalan (all of whom are hereinafter referred to as respondent lot buyers).
On February 3, 1998, petitioners as heirs of Salas, Jr. filed in the Regional
Trial Court of Lipa City a Complaint 6 for declaration of nullity of sale,
reconveyance, cancellation of contract, accounting and damages against herein
respondents which was docketed as Civil Case No. 98-0047. On April 24, 1998,
respondent Laperal Realty filed a Motion toDismiss on the ground that petitioners
failed to submit their grievance to arbitration as required under Article VI of the
Agreement of their arbitration clause.
Issue: Whether or not rescission is an arbitrable?
Rulings:
Yes
The petitioners' contention is without merit. For while rescission, as a
general rule, is an arbitrable issue, they impleaded in the suit for rescission the
respondent lot buyers who are neither parties to the Agreement nor the latter's
assigns or heirs. Consequently, the right to arbitrate as provided in Article VI of
the Agreement was never vested in respondent lot buyers.
Respondent Laperal Realty, as a contracting party to the Agreement, has
the right to compel petitioners to first arbitrate before seeking judicial relief.
However, to split the proceedings into arbitration for respondent Laperal Realty
and trial for the respondent lot buyers, or to hold trial in abeyance pending
arbitration between petitioners and respondent Laperal Realty, would in effect