ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT OF 2004 Differentiate Arbitration, Mediation and

Conciliation?
What is ADR?
Arbitration Mediation Conciliation
Any process or procedure used to resolve a dispute or a voluntary means a voluntary process whereby
controversy, other than by adjudication of a presiding dispute process in which a the parties to a
judge of a court or an officer of a government agency, as resolution mediator, selected dispute use a
defined in this Act, in which a neutral third party process in which by the disputing conciliator, who
participates to assist in the resolution of issues, which one or more
includes arbitration, mediation, conciliation, early neutral parties, facilitates meets with the
arbitrators,
evaluation, mini-trial, or any combination thereof. communication parties both
appointed in
and negotiation, separately and
What is the State Policy on ADR? accordance with
and assist the together in an
the agreement of
parties in
 ADR act of 2004 declared the state policy
the parties, or reaching a attempt to resolve
 Promote party autonomy resolution of dispute
rules voluntary their differences
 Freedom of the party to choose or make their own promulgated agreement in an antagonistic
arrangement to resolve dispute pursuant to this regarding a manner.
 Provides solutions that is less time consuming, Act, resolve a
less confrontational procedure of goodwill and lasting dispute
dispute by
friendship rendering an
 Wave of the future in international relationship award
What are the Classification of forms of ADR?
 As to the number of parties:
 Bi – party – one or two parties
 Multi – Party – two or more As to
the number of issues involve: Simple –
one issues involve
 Complex – two or more issues
 As to the extent of conclusion
 Complete – all issues involve is resolve
 Partial – only two or three issues
involve are resolved but not all
 As to the role of evidence in the proceedings
 Evidentiary
 Non – merit based
 As to the pendency of the court case
 Case – related – when there is a case
involved
 Independent
 As to the applicable law
 Domestic – when the place of business
and arbitration is in the Philippines
 International – when the place of
business involved two states and arbitration
is outside the Philippines
 Foreign – when the place of business is
outside the Philippines and the arbitration is
outside the Philippines.
 As to the permanency of the ADR provider
 AD – HOC – temporary
 Institutional – permanent
What may be the subject of ADR under ADR Act of
2004?
Any adversarial dispute and controversy involving two
parties; EXCEPT:
a.) labor disputes covered by Presidential Decree No.
442, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the
Philippines, as amended and its Implementing
Rules and
Regulations;
b.) the civil status of persons;
c.) the validity of a marriage;
d.) any ground for legal separation;
e.) the jurisdiction of courts;
f.) future legitime;
g.) criminal liability;
h.) those which by law cannot be compromised.
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES
What law governs Arbitration Of Construction Disputes?
Who has exclusive Jurisdiction over such disputes?
Executive Order No. 1008, otherwise known as the
Constitution Industry Arbitration Law. (Sec 34) Construction
disputes which fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction
of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (the
"Commission") shall include those between or among parties
to, or who are otherwise bound by, an arbitration agreement,
directly or by reference whether such parties are project
owner, contractor, subcontractor, quantity surveyor,
bondsman or issuer of an insurance policy in a
construction project. (Sec 35)
What are the requisites before Appointment of a
Foreign Arbitrator by the CIAC can be made?
(a) the dispute is a construction dispute in which one party
is an international party
(b) the person to be appointed agreed to abide by the
arbitration rules and policies of CIAC;
(c) he/she is either co- arbitrator upon the nomination of
the international party; or he/she is the common choice of the
two CIAC-accredited arbitrators first appointed one of whom
was nominated by the international party; and
(d) the foreign arbitrator shall be of different nationality
from the international party.
(Sec 37)
A construction dispute is filed before the RTC, the latter,
prior to the pre-trial conference, dismissed the case
upon knowing that the parties had entered into an
arbitration to be conducted by the CIAC. Was the
dismissal proper?
Yes, however, the parties, assisted by their respective counsel,
may submit to the regional trial court a written agreement
exclusive for the Court, rather than the CIAC, to resolve the
dispute. (Sec 39)
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ARBITRAL AWARDS
Who confirms a domestic award?
The confirmation of a domestic award shall be made by the
regional trial court in accordance with the Rules of Procedure
to be promulgated by the Supreme Court.
A CIAC arbitral award need not be confirmed by the regional
trial court to be executory as provided under E.O. No. 1008.
(Sec 40)
How is a foreign arbitral award recognized and
enforced?
If covered by the New York Convention:
• Governed by the New York Convention.
 • Shall be filled with RTC in accordance with the
rules of procedure to be promulgated by the Supreme
Court.
• Said procedural rules shall provide that the party
file with the court the original or authenticated copy of
the award and the arbitration agreement.
• If the award or agreement is not made in any of
the official languages, the party shall supply a duly
certified translation thereof into any of such languages.
• The applicant shall establish that the country in
which foreign arbitration award was made is a party to
the New York Convention.
(Sec 42)
If not covered by the New York Convention:
The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards not
covered by the New York Convention shall be done in
accordance with procedural rules to be promulgated by the
Supreme Court. The Court may, grounds of comity and
reciprocity, recognize and enforce a non-convention award as
a convention award. (Sec 43)
Is a foreign arbitral award when confirmed by a court of
a foreign country, be recognized and enforced as a
foreign arbitral award and not a judgment of a foreign
court?
No. (Sec 44)
Grounds to Reject a foreign Arbitral Award?
(a) The parties to the agreement referred to in article II
were, under the law applicable to them, under some
incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law
to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any
indication thereon, under the law of the country where the
award was made; or
(b) The party against whom the award is invoked was not
given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of
the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to
present his case; or
(c) The award deals with a difference not contemplated by
or not falling within the terms of the submission to
arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the
scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the
decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be
separated from those not so submitted, that part of the
award which contains decisions on matters submitted to
arbitration may be recognized and enforced; or (d) The
composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure
was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or,
failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of
the country where the arbitration took place; or
(e) The award has not yet become binding on the parties, or
has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of
the country in which, or under the law of which, that award
was made.
(Article V New York Convention) (Sec 47)

How may a decision of the regional trial court confirming,
vacating, setting aside, modifying or correcting an arbitral
award be appealed?
It may be appealed to the Court of Appeals in accordance with
the rules of procedure to be promulgated by the Supreme
Court.
• The Court shall send notice to the parties at their
address of record in the arbitration, or if any party
cannot be served notice at such address, at such party's
last known address.
• The notice shall be sent at least fifteen (15) days
before the date set for the initial hearing of the
application.

The losing party who appeals from the judgment of the court
confirming an arbitral award shall required by the appealant
court to post counterbond executed in favor of the prevailing
party equal to the amount of the award in accordance with the
rules to be promulgated by the Supreme Court. (Sec 46)

Where and how shall the proceedings for recognition

and enforcement of an arbitration agreement or for
vacation, setting aside, correction or modification of an
arbitral award, and any application with a court for
arbitration assistance and supervision as special
proceedings and shall be filled?

With the RTC:

(i) where arbitration proceedings are
conducted;
(ii) where the asset to be attached or levied upon,
or the act to be enjoined is located;
(iii) where any of the parties to the dispute resides
or has his place of business; or (iv) in the
National Judicial Capital Region, at the option
of the applicant.
DOMESTIC ARBITRATION R.A. 876 The Arbitration Law
When is arbitration Domestic?
It is domestic if the components of parties’ places, business,
place of arbitration, place of performance of a substantial part
of the obligation, and place where the subject matter of
dispute is most closely connected, are all located in the
Philippines.
What disputes are covered by Rule son Domestic
Arbitration?
Commercial and Non-Commercial disputes provided they are
susceptible of arbitration and do not fall within the exclusive
original arbitral jurisdiction or quasi-judicial agencies.
To what controversies and cases is this Act not
applicable?
Those subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial
Relations or which have been submitted to it as provided by
Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred and three, as
amended. (Sec 3)
What is the effect if any suit or proceeding be brought
upon an issue arising out of an agreement provided for
arbitration?
Upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or
proceeding is referable to arbitration, shall stay the action or
proceeding until an arbitration has been had in accordance
with the terms of the agreement: Provided, That the applicant,
for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.
(Sec 7)
Who are disqualified to be parties to an arbitration
agreement?
• Infant
• Person judicially declared to be incompetent
 Unless with guardian or guardian ad litem
(Sec 2)
What is the form of an arbitration agreement?
It must satisfy the essential requisites of a valid contract.
(Cargill V. San Fernando Regala Trading).
 It must be in writing
 Subscribed by the party sought to be charged, or
his lawful agent. (Sec 4)
When shall arbitral proceedings be commenced?
The commencement is determined by the prior
arbitration agreement between the parties
• In an institutional arbitration where there is no
prior arbitration agreement – it is commenced in
accordance with the arbitration rules of the institutional
arbitrator
• In an ad hoc arbitration where there is prior arbitration
agreement – it is commenced upon the delivery by the
claimant to the respondent of a demand for arbitration.
How are arbitrators appointed?
• 1 by each party
• Third arbitrator shall be appointed by the 1st and 2nd
arbitrator appointed by the parties.
• Default: Appointed by the National President of the IBP
What are the Qualifications of Arbitrators?
An Arbitrator must be:
• Legal Age
• Full Enjoyment of his civil rights
• Know how to read and write
What are the grounds for disqualification of arbitrators?
• No person appointed to serve as an arbitrator shall be
related by blood or marriage within the sixth degree to
either party to the controversy.
• No person shall serve as an arbitrator in any proceeding
if he has or has had financial, fiduciary or other interest
in the controversy or cause to be decided or in the result
of the proceeding, or has any personal bias, which might
prejudice the right of any party to a fair and impartial
award.
• No party shall select as an arbitrator any person to act
as his champion or to advocate his cause.
How may the appointment of arbitrators be challenged?
The arbitrators may be challenged only for the reasons
mentioned in the preceding section [Disqualifications] which
may have arisen after the arbitration agreement or were
unknown at the time of arbitration.
The challenge shall be made before them.
If they do not yield to the challenge, the challenging party may
renew the challenge before the Court of First Instance of the
province or city in which the challenged arbitrator, or, any of
them, if there be more than one, resides. While the challenging
incident is discussed before the court, the hearing or
arbitration shall be suspended, and it shall be continued
immediately after the court has delivered an order on the
challenging incident. (Sec 11)
Arbitration under a contract or submission shall be
deemed a special proceeding, of which the court
specified in the contract or submission, or if none be
specified. Which court has jurisdiction over such
proceeding?
CFI for the province or city in which one of the parties resides
or is doing business, or in which the arbitration was held, shall
have jurisdiction. Any application to the court, or a judge
thereof, hereunder shall be made in manner provided for the
making and hearing of motions, except as otherwise herein
expressly provided. (Sec 22)
How is a domestic arbitral award confirmed?
• Filing a motion for confirmation and securing an entry
of judgment from the court.
• When: One month after the award is made
 • Who: Any party to the controversy which was arbitrated
may apply to the court having jurisdiction.
• Thereupon the court must grant such order unless the
award is vacated, modified or corrected, as prescribed
herein.
• Notice of such motion must be served upon the adverse
party or his attorney as prescribed by law for the service
of such notice upon an attorney in action in the same
court. (Sec 23)
What are the Grounds for Vacating an Award?
(a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or
other undue means; or
(b) That there was evident partiality or corruption in
the arbitrators or 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
disqualifications 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.
(Sec 24)
What is the effect if the award is vacated?
The court, in its discretion, may direct a new hearing either
before the same arbitrators or before a new arbitrator or
arbitrators to be chosen in the manner provided in the
submission or contract for the selection of the original
arbitrator or arbitrators, and any provision limiting the time in
which the arbitrators may make a decision shall be deemed
applicable to the new arbitration and to commence from the
date of the court's order. (Sec 24)
What are the Grounds for modifying or correcting an
award?
(a) Where there was an evident miscalculation of
figures, or an evident mistake in the description of any
person, thing or property referred to in the award; or
(b) Where the arbitrators have awarded upon a
matter not submitted to them, not affecting the merits
of the decision upon the matter submitted; or
(c) Where the award is imperfect in a matter of form
not affecting the merits of the controversy, and if it had
been a commissioner's report, the defect could have
been amended or disregarded by the court.
(d) The order may modify and correct the award so
as to effect the intent thereof and promote justice
between the parties.
CHUNGFU VS CA
 Petitioner Chung Fu Industries and private respondent
Roblecor Philippines, Inc forged a construction
agreement - to construct and finish petitioner corporation's
industrial/factory complex in Tanawan, Tanza, Cavite for and
in consideration of P42,000,000.00.
 In the event of disputes arising from the performance of
subject contract, it was stipulated therein that the issue(s)
shall be submitted for resolution before a single arbitrator
chosen by both parties.
 Subsequent negotiations between the parties eventually led
to the formulation of an arbitration agreement which, among
others, provides:
 The parties mutually agree that they will abide by the
decision of the arbitrator including any amount that
may be awarded to either party as compensation,
consequential damage and/or interest thereon;
 The parties mutually agree that the decision of the
arbitrator shall be final and unappealable.
Therefore, there shall be no further judicial
recourse if either party disagrees with the whole
or any part of the arbitrator's award.
 It is stated explicitly under Art. 2044 of the Civil Code
that the finality of the arbitrators' award is not absolute
and without exceptions. Where the conditions described
in Articles 2038, 2039 and 2040 applicable to both
compromises and arbitrations are obtaining, the
arbitrators' award may be annulled or rescinded.
 Additionally, under Sections 24 and 25 of the Arbitration
Law, there are grounds for vacating, modifying or
rescinding an arbitrator's award. Thus, if and when the
factual circumstances referred to in the above-cited
provisions are present, judicial review of the award is
properly warranted.
 What if courts refuse or neglect to inquire into
the factual milieu of an arbitrator's award to
determine whether it is in accordance with law or
within the scope of his authority? How may the
power of judicial review be invoked?--> This is
where the proper remedy is certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Revised Rules of Court. Even decisions of
administrative agencies which are declared "final" by law
are not exempt from judicial review when so warranted.
 It should be stressed, too, that voluntary arbitrators, by
the nature of their functions, act in a quasi-judicial
capacity. It stands to reason, therefore, that their
decisions should not be beyond the scope of the power
of judicial review of this Court.
BF CORPORATION V. CA
The formal requisites of an agreement to arbitrate are
the following: (a) It must be in Writing (b) It must be
subscribed by the parties or their representatives.
Petitioners contention that there was no arbitration
clause because the contract incorporating said provision
is part of a hodge-podge document is untenable. A
contract, such as an arbitration agreement, need not be
contained in a single writing. It may be collected from
several different writing, which do not conflict with each
other and which when connected show the parties,
subject matter, terms and conditions.
 HI PRECISION STEEL CENTER, INC. vs LIM KIM
STEEL BUILDERS, IONC
 Hi-Precision entered into a contract with private
respondent Steel Builders to complete a P21 Million
construction project owned by the former
 Steel Builders filed a "Request for Adjudication" with
public respondent CIAC. In its Complaint filed with the
CIAC, Steel Builders sought payment of its unpaid
progress buildings, alleged unearned profits and other
receivables. Hi-Precision, upon the other hand, in its
Answer and Amended Answer, claimed actual and
liquidated damages, reimbursement of alleged
additional costs it had incurred in order to complete
the project and attorney's fees.
 Petitioner asks this Court to correct legal errors
committed by the Arbitral Tribunal, which at the
same time constitute grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
Arbitral Tribunal; and Should the supposed errors
petitioner asks us to correct be characterized as
errors of fact, such factual errors should nonetheless
be reviewed because there was "grave abuse of
discretion" in the misapprehension of facts on the
part of the Arbitral Tribunal.
 Executive Order No. 1008, as amended, provides, in
its Section 19, as follows: Sec. 19. Finality of Awards.
— The arbitral award shall be binding upon the
parties. It shall be final and inappealable except on
questions of law which shall be appealable to the
Supreme Court.
 Section 19 makes it crystal clear that questions of
fact cannot be raised in proceedings before the
Supreme Court — which is not a trier of facts — in
respect of an arbitral award rendered under the aegis
of the CIAC.
 Examination of the Petition at bar reveals that it is
essentially an attempt to re-assert and re-litigate
before this Court the detailed or itemized factual
claims made before the Arbitral Tribunal under a
general averment that the Arbitral Tribunal had
"misapprehended the facts" submitted to it. in
reaching its factual and legal conclusions.
ABS-CBN V. WORLD INTERACTIVE NETWORK
SYSTEMS
R.A. 876 [Arbitration Law], itself mandates that it is the
CFI, now the RTC which has jurisdiction over questions
relating to arbitration such as a petition to vacate
arbitral award. The RTC has jurisdiction when the
ground to vacate are those enumerated under Sec 24
of R.A. 876. A petition to vacate filed in the RTC which
is not based on the grounds enumerated in Sec 24 of
said law should be dismissed.
In cases not falling under any of the aforementioned
grounds to vacate an award, the Court has already
made several pronouncements that a petition for
Review under Rule 43 or a petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 may be availed of in the CA.
The remedy petitioner availed of entitled Alternative
petition for review under Rule 43 or Petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 was wrong because the
remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive
and not alternative and successive.
REAL BANK INC. V. SAMSUNG MABUHAY
CORPORATION
Mediation is part of pre-trial and failure of the plaintiff
to appear thereat merits sanction on the part of the
absent party. The Second revised Guidelines for the
Implementation of Mediation Proceedings and Sec 5
rule 18 of ROC grant judges the discretion to dismiss
and action for failure of plaintiff to appear in mediation
proceedings.
The Trial court was erroneously dismissed. The notice
of mediation sent to respondent Samsung’s original
counsel was ineffectual as the same was sent at the
time when such counsel had already validly withdrawn
its representation. Thus the absence of respondent
Samsung during the scheduled mediation conference
was excusable and justified.
LM POWER ENGINEERING CORPORATON V.
CAPITOL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION
GROUP
There is no more need to file a request with the CIAC
in order to vest it with jurisdiction to decide a
construction dispute. The arbitral clause in the
agreement is a commitment on the part of the parties
to submit to arbitration the disputes covered therein.
Because that clause is binding, they are expected to
abide by it in good faith. And because it covers the
dispute between the parties in the present case, either
of them may compel the other to arbitrate.
Since petitioner has already filed a Complaint with the
RTC without prior recourse to arbitration, the proper
procedure to enable the CIAC to decide on the disputes
to request the stay or suspension of such action as
provided under R.A. 876.
RCBC V. MAGWIN MARKETING
CORPORATION
There is nothing in the Rules that imposes the sanction
of dismissal for failing to submit a compromise
agreement. Dismissal on the basis thereof amounts no
less to gross procedural infirmity assailable by
certiorari. For such submission could at most be
directory and could not result in throwing out the case
for failure to effect compromise. While a compromise is
encouraged, failure to consummate one does not
warrant any procedural sanction, much less an
authority to jettison a civil complaint.
CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER VS. NLRC
The petitioner’s refusal to negotiate for a collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) resulted in aunion-led
strike. The Sec. of Labor and Employment rendered a
decision Directing the management of the Capitol
Medical Center to negotiate a CBA with the Capitol
Medical CenterEmployees Association-Alliance of
Filipino Workers, the certified bargaining agent of the
rank-and-file employees. Instead of filing a motion with
the SOLE for the enforcement of the resolutions of
Undersecretary Laguesma as affirmed by this Court, the
Union filed a Notice of Strike with the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB
A union is mandated to notify the NCMB of an impendi
ng dispute in a particular bargaining unit via a notice of
strike. Thereafter, the NCMB, through its conciliator-
mediators, shall call the parties to a conference at the
soonest possible time in order to actively assist them in
exploring all possibilities for amicable settlement. In the
event of the failure in the conciliation/mediation
proceedings, the parties shall be encouraged to submit
their dispute for voluntary arbitration. However, if the
parties refuse, the union may hold a strike vote, and if
the requisite number of votes is obtained, a strike may
ensue.
The purpose of the strike vote is to ensure that the
decision to strike broadly rests with the majority of the
union members in generaland not with a mere minority,
and at the same time, discourage wildcat strikes, union
bossism and even corruption. A strike vote report
submitted to the NCMB at least seven days prior to the
intended date of strike ensures that a strike vote was,
indeed, taken. In the event that the report is false, the
seven-day period affords the members an opportunity
to take the appropriate remedy before it is too late.
The 15 to 30 day cooling off period is designed to afford
the parties the opportunity to amicably resolve the
dispute with the assistance of the NCMB
conciliator/mediator, while the seven-day strike ban is
intended to give the DOLE an opportunity to verify
whether the projected strike really carries the
imprimatur of the majority of the union members. The
requirement of giving notice of the conduct of a strike
vote to the NCMB at least 24hours before the meeting
for the said purpose
RIZALINA POSITOS V. JACOB CHUA
The failure of respondent to appear personally during
the proceedings is equivalent to non-compliance with
R.A. 7160 thus rendering the complaint dismissible
Respondents complaint was dismissed for failure to
comply with the conciliation process. Non-compliance
affected the sufficiency of his cause of action and
rendered the complaint susceptible, as in fact it resulted
to dismissal on the ground of prematurity.
UNIWIDE SALES REALTY AND RESOURCES
CORPORATION vs TITAN IKEDEA CONS. And DEVT
CORP
An arbitration body, the CIAC, can only resolve issues
before it by the parties through the Term of Reference
which functions similarly as a pre-trial brief. Thus if
Uniwide’s claims for unliquidated damages was not
raised as an issue in the TOR or in any modified or
amended version of it, the CIAC cannot make a ruling
on it.
The Rules of Court cannot be used to contravene the
CIAC Rules. Allowing Sec 5 Rule 10 of the ROC
[Ammendment of Complaint] to apply in such case,
deprives Titan of due process to defend her claim after
the late submission of the memorandum.[Memorandum
was only passed after the arbitration proceedings]
PHIL ROCK INC V. CIAC
After submitting itself to arbitration proceedings and
actively participating therein, petitioner is estopped
from assailing the jurisdiction of the CIAC, merely
because the latter rendered an adverse decision.
Petitioner claims, on the other hand, that this
Agreement was withdrawn by respondents on April 8,
1994, because of the exclusion of the seven engineers
of petitioners in the arbitration case. This withdrawal
became the basis for the April 13, 1994 CIAC Order
dismissing the arbitration case and referring the dispute
back to the RTC. Consequently, the CIAC was divested
of its jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
This contention is untenable. First, private
respondents removed the obstacle to the continuation
of the arbitration, precisely by withdrawing their
objection to the exclusion of the seven engineers.
Second, petitioner continued participating in the
arbitration even after the CIAC Order had been issued.
It even concluded and signed the Terms of Reference
Petitioner maneuvered to avoid the RTCs final resolution
of the dispute by arguing that the regular court also lost
jurisdiction after the arbitral tribunals April 13, 1994
Order referring the case back to the RTC. In so doing,
petitioner conceded and estopped itself from further
questioning the jurisdiction of the CIAC.
AGAN V. PIATCO DFA and BSP vs FALCON
The court is aware that arbitration proceedings pursuant
to Sec 10. 02 of the ARCA have been filed at the
instance of the Respondent PIATCO. We hold that the
arbitration step taken by PIATCO will not oust this court
of its jurisdiction over the case at bar.

Petitioners in the present case who have presented

legitimate interest in the resolution of the controversy
are not parties to the PIATCO contracts. Accordingly
they cannot be bound by the Arbitration clause provided
for in the ARCA and hence cannot be compelled to
submit to arbitration proceedings.
TRANSFIELD V. LUZON HYDRO
ELECTRIC CORPORATION.
The applicability of the New York Convention in the
Philippines was confirmed in Section 42 of R.A. 9285.
Said law also provides that the application for the
recognition and enforcement of such awards shall be
filed with the proper RTC. While TPI's resort to the RTC
for recognition and enforcement of the Third Partial
Award is sanctioned by both the New York Convention
and R.A. 9285, its application for enforcement,
however, was premature, to say the least. True, the ICC
Arbitral Tribunal had indeed ruled that LHC wrongfully
drew upon the securities, yet there is no order for the
payment or return of the proceeds of the said securities.
The declarations made in the Third Partial Award do not
constitute orders for the payment of money.
Anent the claim of TPI that it was LHC which committed
forum-shopping, suffice it to say that its bare
allegations are not sufficient to sustain the charge.
KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO LTD., JUDGE LERMA
and PACIFIC GENERAL STEEL MANUFACTURING
CORP
 Parties entered whereby petitioner undertake
the supply and installation of LPG Cylinder
MFg
 Initial operation cannot be conducted due to
Respondents financial difficulties
 Also PGSMC cancelled the contract due to
altered quantity and lowered quality of the
equip
 Kogies – instituted an application for
arbitration in Korea . Contract has arbitration
clause ---- “…..final determination of parties
legal rights – not against public policy
 The contract in this case was perfected here
in the Philippines. Therefore, our laws ought
to govern. Nonetheless, Art. 2044 of the Civil
Code sanctions the validity of mutually agreed
arbitral clause or the finality and binding
effect of an arbitral award. Art. 2044
provides, Any stipulation that the arbitrators
award or decision shall be final, is valid,
without prejudice to Articles 2038, 2039 and
2040.
 The arbitration clause was mutually and
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. It has
not been shown to be contrary to any law, or
against morals, good customs, public order,
or public policy. There has been no showing
that the parties have not dealt with each other
on equal footing. We find no reason why the
arbitration clause should not be respected and
complied with by both parties
KOPPEL INC. VS MAKATI ROTARY CLUB J PLUS ASIA DEVT. CORP vs UTILLITY ASSURANCE
CORP
 KFI donated land to Respondent
 Construction contract of 72 rooms at
 Conditions of Donation
FAIRWAYS and BLUE WATERS GOLDF in
– Any increase in the FMV shall not increase 25%
BORACAY by petitioner and Martin Mabuhay
of the original value
 Respondent _ A surety Company
- The rental for the second 25 yrs shall not
 Mabuhay terminated contract --- substantial
exceed 3% of FMV
 KFI assigned all its rights and properties to Petitioner delay
KOPPEL INC  CIA Decision – order Mabuhay to pay the
 RTC – Order petitioner to vacate and pay rentals petitioner
 CA – Affirmed  Surety is liable ---- it secures the obligation
 Even if the validity of the 2005 lease contract (5yr not he downpayment
new lease, 4.2M plus yearly money donation) for
which the arbitration clause originated from is under
dispute, the arbitration clause can still be invoked
under the Doctrine of Separability.
 [Arbitration agreement is independent of the main
contact even if it contained in Arbitration clause.]
 Filing of a request pursuant to Section 24 of R.A.
9285 is not the sole means by which an arbitral
clause may be validly invoked. When the petitioner
invoked the right to arbitrate in their answer, they
effectively invoked the right to arbitrate.
 Failure to settle Judicial Dispute Resolution
proceedings gives rise to more cause to submit the
same case to arbitration.
GONZALES CLIMAX MINING
 Parties entered into agreements: Petitioner as
owner of patented claim of mineral deposits)
right to explore….
 Petitioner seeks to nullify all contracts on the
ground of fraud, oppression and violation of
Art XII of the Constitution
 Arbitration before the Panel of Arbitrators is
proper only when there is a disagreement
between the parties as to some provisions of
the contract between them, which needs the
interpretation and the application of that
particular knowledge and expertise possessed
by members of that Panel.
 It is not proper when one of the parties
repudiates the existence or validity of such
contract or agreement on the ground of fraud
or oppression as in this case. The validity of
the contract cannot be subject of arbitration
proceedings. Allegations of fraud and duress
in the execution of a contract are matters
within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts
of law. These questions are legal in nature and
require the application and interpretation of
laws and jurisprudence which is necessarily a
judicial function.
HUTAMA – RSEA vs CITRA
 Subconstruction Agreement (Engineering
Procurement Construction Contract (EPCC)
for the Metro Manila Skyway Project
 There was non payment of interim billings,
final billing, completion bonusplus interest for
delay
 Petitoner filed request for arbitration with
CIAC
 Respondent – CIAC has no jurisdiction ---
EPCC COnntract refer the dispute to DISPUTE
ADJUDICATION BOARD
 E0 1008 – CIAC Acquires jurisdiction either by
the presence of the arbitration clause and
submission by the parties to arbitration
 NOTWITSTANDING REFERAL TO A DIFFERENT
BODY, shall be deemed an agreement to
submit controversy to CIAC
ELPIDIO UY vs. PUBLIC ESTATE AUTHORITY CARGILL PHILIPPINES vs SAN FERNANDO
REGALA TRADING, INC
 Landscaping subcontruction agreement under
PEA’s contract with Bases Conversion Dev’t  Contract for Purchases of Molasses
Authority for the development of Heritage  Respondent – Filed rescission of contract plus
Park Project damages
 There was a delay in the turn-over of work  Petitoner filed Motion to dismiss and request
area (delay in MDC;s horizontal works) hence the referral of the case to voluntary
additional cost were incurred for the arbitration
equipment’s and man power made on standby o Contract never existed because
and the necessity of constructing nursery and respondent did not return the
mobilization of water trucks agreement bearing its signature
 CIA – award in favor of Petitioner o Contract contained arbitration clause
 Petitioner files motion for re-computation “Dispute between the buyer and the
 Appeals from judgment of the CIAC shall be seller…. Arbitration award be final
taken to the CA by filing a petition for review and binding on both parties” ---
within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the Respondent contends that this is
notice of award, judgment, final order or contrary to public policy because it
resolution, or from the date of its last oust the court of its jurisdiction
publication if publication is required by law for
its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioners  DOCTRINE OF SEPARABILITY –
motion for new trial or reconsideration duly ARBITRTATION AGREEMENT IS INDEPENDED
filed in accordance with the governing law of OF MAIN CONTRACT – It is a separate
the court or agency a quo. When Uy filed his contract and it does not automatically
petition for review with the CA, the period to terminate when contract of which it is a part
appeal had not yet lapsed; it was interrupt comes to an end

Note: Climax-Arimco sought to enforce the

arbitration clause of its contract with Gonzales
and the former's move was premised on the
existence of a valid contract; while Gonzales,
who resisted the move of Climax-Arimco for
arbitration, did not deny the existence of the
 contract but merely assailed the validity thereof HEUNGHWA INDUSTRIES CO. LTD vs DJ
on the ground of fraud and oppression. BUILDERS CORP.
Respondent claims that in the case before Us,
 Subcontraction Agreement under the Main
petitioner who is the party insistent on arbitration
Contract obtained by Petitioner with DPWH for
also claimed in their Motion to Dismiss/Suspend
the construction of Roxas-Lanongan Pd.
Proceedings that the contract sought By
Palawan project
respondent to be rescinded did not exist or was
 Subcontract Price not fully paid
not consummated; thus, there is no room for the
 Heunghwa claimed that he is not entitled to
application of the separability doctrine
pay, and filed a counterclaim for the
Note; RTC may suspend proceedings whether or completion of the abandoned works
not that arbitration be conducted in the  FIRST: Complaint for Brach of Contract
Philippines  SECOND – Withdrew case in RTC and referral
to CIAC
 THIRD – Withdrawal of the Case to CIAC and
SHINRYO PHIL INC., vs RNN Inc referral of the case back to RTC ---
 Parties both domestic corporation entered HEUNGHWA claimed that it never authorize its
into a Subcontraction Agreement lawyer to refer the case to CIAC/arbitration
 Referral to CIAC --- RNNI recovery of unpaid  CIAC is not divested with jurisdiction to hear
accounts. the case. THE construction contained
 CIAC AWARD – Ordered shinryo to pay RNNI provision to submit any dispute to arbitration
 CA and SC – affirmed CIAC award and authorization to counsel to submit case
 Petitioner seek the court to calibrate the for arbitration is not required.
evidence it has presented before the CIAC
 FINDINGS OF FACTS OF QUASI- JUDICIAL
BODIES which have acquired expertise
because their jurisdiction is confined with
specific matters, ARE GENERALLY ACCORDED
NOT ONLY RESPECT BUT ALSO WITH
FINALITY ESPECIALY WHEN AFFIRMED BY
THE CA
TUNA PROCESSION INC vs PHIL KINGFORD INC.
CONSTRUCTION CORP
 Licensor grants a license to 5 Phil tuna
Processors who formed the TUNA
PROCESSING INC ---- a foreign Corporation
not licenses to do business in the PHIL ---
constituted only pursuant to the MOA
 KIngford withdrew from TPI, Licensor won the
case in the International Arbitration in
California USA
 TPI filed petition to enforced Foreign Arbitral
Award against Kingford but was denied for
lack of legal capacity to Sue in the Philippines
 SPECIAL RULES ON ADR - Any party to a
foreign arbitral award may petition the court
to recognize and enfore a foreign arbitral
award:
o Address of parties
o Country where the arb award was
made
o Relief sought
o Authenticated arbitration agreement
o Authenticated Arbitration Award
 RA 9285 ADR Law has certainly resolves any
conflict of laws because it already
incorporated the
 NEW YORK CONVETION --- Section 42
 MODEL LAW – Section 19
F.R. CRUZ and CONSTRUCTION COM vs HR
 SUBCONTRATION AGREEMENT under the
MAIN Contract of the Petitioner with DPWH for
Magsaysay via Duct- Lower Agusan Dev’t
Project
 CONDITONS OF PAYMENT – JOINT
MEASURE/QUANTIFICATION in order to arrive
at common quantity
 Several Progress Billings were sent – first
progress billings were paid without the
required joint quantification  constitute
waiver on the part of the petitioner
 No valid rescission by the private respondent
because there is EXTRAJUDICIAL waiver of
such pursuant to the contract – despite any
dispute or controversy, respondent must
continue with the performance of its
Obligation
 ARBITRATION COST shall be shared equally.
ESTATE OF NELSON DULAY vs ABOITIZ JEBSEN
MARITIME INC and GENERAL CHARTERERS, INC
 SEAMAN – BOSUN died due to ACUTE RENAL
FAILURE secondary to SEPTICEMIA --- died
after completion of his employment contract
but during his death a bonafide member of the
Union
 LA and NLRC assumed jurisdiction and ruled
on the matter
 CA- refer case to NATIONAL CONCILIATION
AND MEDIATION BOARD (note: BASTA
UNDER CBA --- covered by Arbitration)
 CASE involves - WHERE SPECIAL STATUTE
(RA 8042) refers to a subject in general,
which the GENERAL STATUTE (Art 217 (c) and
Art 261 of the LABOR CODE treats in
particular.
AGBAYANI VS CA.
 COMPLAINT FOR GRAVE ORAL DEFAMATION
 On appeal to DOJ – found that subj utterances
only constitute slight oral defamation but
nonetheless dismissed the case for failure to
comply with the Brgy. Conciliation
 MANDATORY BGRY CONCILIATION
o Both parties live in the same bgry and
the same workplace
 COMPLAINT is PREMATURE
 Case not one of the exception
 No allegation of prior availment of
conciliation process
 No certification that no conciliation had
been reached by the parties
METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT VS
MACTAN ROCK INDUSTIRES, INC.
 Water Supply contract – supply of potable
water and the reformation of contract to
include Recovery Cost in the Price escalation
Formula
 CIAC – ordered reformation of contract
 CIA has Jurisdiction – Docs/ Main Contract
including its specifications – undertaking
contemplated by the parties is one if
infrastructure of works rather than on of
supply or services
 Section 4, E.O No. 1008 0f the Construction
Industry Arbitration Law - broad enough to
cover any dispute whether there involves
merely CONTRACTUAL MONEY CLAIM or
EXECUTION OF WORKS
 ITS JURISDICTION CANNOT BE ALTERED BY
 Stipulations
 Restriction the nature of the
construction dispute
 Appointing another arbitral body
 Making that arbitral body’s award final
and binding
NOTE: If purely supply of services where
no construction is involved, CIAC has no
jurisdiction
RCBC vs BDO
 Re: Sales Purchase Agreement beyween
RCBC and EPCI Bank, Ind SH of Bankard Inc
 RCBC Commenced Arbitration – ICC-ICA
 Payment of Advance Cost
 1st, 2nd, 3rd partial award in favour of RCBC
 Chairman’s act of furnishing Secomb Article
indicative of its impartiality in deciding the
case
 Despite Referral to ICC-=ICA, TOR contains
agreement on the governing law - Tribunal
to determine issues in accordance with Phil
Law, both parties are domestic
 Parties are stilled allowed to avail interim
measures ie. WPI/TRO during the pendency of
Arbitral Award --- However, BDO payment
for the full satisfaction of award despite
protest justifies non –issuance of the
WPI/TRO
 Evident Partiality – Ground to VACATE and
ARBITRAL AWARD
FRUEHAUF ELECTRONIC PHILS CORP VS
TECHNOLOGY ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLY AND
MANAGEMENT PACIFIC COURT

 Lease contact – presence of sublease

 Sublease continued despite termination of the
Principal Lease Contract
 Arbitral Award – in favour of PEP-C awarding
payment of unpaid rent
 RTC – confirm award, Respondent filed notice
to appeal
 CA - Initially dismissed
- On MR, reverse/set aside arbitral award
 Team turned over the property
properly because new
arrangement of the sublease
operates as a resumption of
lessor’s possession
 Team not liable for Repairs and
Improvement because they were
the owner
 SC- even assuming that tribunal was
incorrect, this would have been simple errors
of law, -- TRIBUNAL not the RTC or CA have
the authority over the dispute
 TO RULE OTHERWISE, it erodes obligatory
force of arbitration agreements. This will
weaken ADR mechanism, by allowing the
court to rule otherwise whenever they
disagree with the arbitral award