ADR: April 20, 2018

CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT

Koppel, Inc. v. Makati Rotary Club Foundation, Inc., G.R. No. 198075, September 4, 2013

Year 1904 naging corporate yung predecessors ng Fedders Koppel and their original product is railway yung
mga locomotive cargo cars, sugar cane cars, tankers and bulk carriers bago sila mag divert sa aircon and still, the
brand name is fedders. Nag sara sila year 2008 and binenta nila lahat ng properties nila sa Koppel Inc. What is the
maximum time of a corporation with the extension? 50 years with another 50 years. So na exhaust na nila yung
time kaya nag close na sila, tapos naging Koppel Inc., dinivest nila lahat to Koppel Inc. So nakikita na nila yung
mangyayare kaya yung mga properties nila, especially the immovables ay dinonate nila sa Makati Rotary. So
dinonate nila with the primary condition: if the Makati will lease back to them in a very minimal amount of rent. So
sabi naman ng gobyerno, tax evasion kasi hindi sila nagbabayad ng taxes ng real estate, hindi sila nagbabayad ng
withholding tax nung rent.

Based on arbitration: Merong arbitration clause yung donation. Sabi nila hindi arbitrable kase sabi diyan, it
needs intervention of a court. Hindi arbitrable kung ang grounds mo eto: fraud, force, duress. If that is present in
the consummation of the contract, and it is a donation contract, it needs intervention of the court. Even though
there is an arbitration clause, hindi yan papasok sa arbitration. Pero kung in interpretation of the stipulation of the
donation, pasok yan sa arbitration. Ang problema etong MTC, kasi bagong arbitration, mejo di nila alam yung
duties of the court. And so basically, nagdemanda yung isa ng unlawful detainer of Makati kasi hindi nagbabayad,
sabi naman ng Koppel, he violated the provision of the donation kaya lalabas dun sa 3% na ceiling eh super (lakta?)
sila. They violated the provision of the donation kaya naman nag file yung Koppel sa RTC recession of contract.
Yung RTC inentertain lahat at nag proceed lahat ang mga kaso hanggang sa CA, inentertain din ng CA, haggang
umabot sa SC.

Sabi ng SC, mali kayong lahat because there is an arbitration clause, arbitrable yan, if you take dominance
against the case was filed. So if you revert back niyo , mag arbitration na kayo. Tapos yung ADR, what is the nature
of the ADR? It is not arbitration it is more of mediation. Yung arbitration clause, even though they are impugning
the contract itself kasi separate siya. So bakit? Baka dun sa mediation mapag usapan hindi sila (?).

J Plus Asia Development Corporation v. Utility Assurance Corporation, G.R. No. 199650, June 26,
2013

Sa domestic arbitration, not construction, if the arbitral tribunal tendered an award, I refer na yan sa RTC within 30
days. Sabi ng reporter, original exclusive jurisdiction. Before, nung wala pa yung revised ROC, pag nag render ng
award ang (CBA?) hindi kailangan under 9285 I affirm, confirm, ng RTC. If you want to contest the award, you will
go directly to (festin?) via 45. Kaya sabi dun tama.

Chung Fu Industries (Philippines), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96283, February 25, 1992

The case was decided by the SC year 1992. So basic principle ito. Even though the party will agree that there
will be no appeal from the arbitral award of the arbitral body- contrary to law. Very basic. That is only the
justiciable controversy that the arbitral body must decide on. Sa case nato, wala pang 43 na cite dito diba.
Confirmarion sa RTC and cina-cite jan. so wala pa yung E.O. ni Marcos jan, wala pa yung rule 1997 na rules of
court. 1992 ROC lang. So yung mga timeline..mga application ng laws