Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 107918 June 14, 1994

ASSOCIATED BANK, petitioner, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MARINA L. BUZON, as Presiding Judge of RTC, Quezon City, MM, Br. 91, VISITACION SERRA FLORES RTC, Quezon City, MM, Br. 91, MA. ASUNCION FLORES, PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK, FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO., SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO. and CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION, respondents.

Soluta, Leonidas, Marifosque, Balce, Santiago & Aguila Law Office for petitioner.

Rector Law Office for respondent Flores.

Balgos and Perez Law Office for respondent PCIB.

Dumaraos, Oracion, Panganiban & Associates for respondent FEBTC.

Cauton, Banares, Carpio, Ishiwata and Associates for respondent SBTC.

Gonzaga, Soneja and Gale Law Offices for respondent Citytrust.

KAPUNAN, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals on November 18, 1992 affirming in toto the Order of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 91 dismissing the petitioner’s third-party complaint against private respondent banks for lack of jurisdiction.

FACTS:

In a complaint for Violation of the Negotiable Instrument Law and Damages, plaintiffs 1 seek the recovery of the amount of P900,913.60 which defendant bank 2 charged against their current account by virtue of the sixteen (16) checks drawn by them despite the apparent alterations therein with respect to the name of the payee, that is, the name Filipinas Shell was erased and substituted with Ever Trading and DBL Trading by their supervisor Jeremias Cabrera, without their knowledge and consent.

With leave of court, defendant bank filed a Third-Party Complaint against Philippine Commercial International Bank, Far East Bank & Trust Company, Security Bank and Trust Company and Citytrust Banking Corporation for reimbursement, contribution, indemnity from said third-party defendants for being the collecting banks of the subject checks and by virtue of their bank guarantee for all checks sent for clearing to the Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC), as provided for in Section 17, (PCHC), as provided for in Section 17, PCHC Clearing House Rules and Regulations.

Philippine Commercial International Bank alleged that the subject check was complete and regular on its face and was paid by it only upon presentment to the drawee bank for clearing who, upon examination thereof, found the same to be complete and regular on its face; that it was only after said check was cleared by third-party plaintiff for payment that it allowed the payee to withdraw the proceeds of the check from its account; that the cause of action of the third-party plaintiff is barred by estoppel and/or laches for its failure to return the check to it within the period provided for under Clearing House Rules and Regulations; that this Court has no jurisdiction over the suit as it and third-party plaintiff are members of the Philippine Clearing House and bound by the Rules and Regulations thereof providing for arbitration.

A Motion To Dismiss was filed by Security Bank and Trust Company on the grounds that third-party plaintiff failed to resort to arbitration as provided for in Section 36 of the Clearing House Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Clearing House Corporation, and that it was released from any liability with the acceptance by third-party plaintiff of the subject check.

The trial court dismissed the third-party complaint for lack of jurisdiction citing Section 36 of the Clearing House Rules and Regulations of the PCHC providing for settlement of disputes and controversies involving any check or item cleared through the body with the PCHC. It ruled — citing the Arbitration Rules of Procedure — that the decision or award of the PCHC through its arbitration committee/arbitrator is appealable only on questions of law to any of the Regional Trial Courts in the National Capital Region where the head office of any of the parties is located. 4

RULING:.

1

We find no merit in the petition.

The Clearing House Rules and Regulations on Arbitration of the Philippine Clearing House Corporation are clearly applicable to petitioner and private respondents, third party plaintiff and defendants, respectively, in the court below. Petitioner Associated Bank’s third party complaint in the trial court was one for reimbursement, contribution and indemnity against the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB), the Far East Bank and Trust, Co. (FEBTC), Security Bank and Trust Co. (SBTC), and the CityTrust Banking Corporation (CTBC), in connection with petitioner’s having honored sixteen checks which said respondent banks supposedly endorsed to the former for collection in 1989. Under the rules and regulations of the Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC), the mere act of participation of the parties concerned in its operations in effect amounts to a manifestation of agreement by the parties to abide by its rules and regulations. 7 As a consequence of such participation, a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the courts over disputes and controversies which fall under the PCHC Rules and Regulations without first going through the arbitration processes laid out by the body. Since claims relating to the regularity of checks cleared by banking institutions are among those claims which should first be submitted for resolution by the PCHC’s Arbitration Committee, petitioner Associated Bank, having voluntarily bound itself to abide by such rules and regulations, is estopped from seeking relief from the Regional Trial Court on the coattails of a private claim and in the guise of a third party complaint without first having obtained a decision adverse to its claim from the said body. It cannot bypass the arbitration process on the basis of its averment that its third party complaint is inextricably linked to the original complaint in the Regional Trial Court.

Under its Articles of Incorporation, the PCHC provides "an effective, convenient, efficient, economical and relevant exchange and facilitate service limited to check processing and sorting by way of assisting member banks, entities in clearing checks and other clearing items as defined and existing in future Central Bank of the Philippines Circulars, memoranda, circular letters rules and regulations and policies in pursuance of Section 107 of RA 265." Pursuant to its function involving the clearing of checks and other clearing items, the PCHC has adopted rules and regulations designed to provide member banks with a procedure whereby disputes involving the clearance of checks and other negotiable instruments undergo a process of arbitration prior to submission to the courts below. This procedure not only ensures a uniformity of rulings relating to factual disputes involving checks and other negotiable instruments but also provides a mechanism for settling minor disputes among participating and member banks which would otherwise go directly to the trial courts. While the PCHC Rules and Regulations allow appeal to the Regional Trial Courts only on questions of law, this does not preclude our lower courts from dealing with questions of fact already decided by the PCHC arbitration when warranted and appropriate.

In Banco de Oro Savings and Mortgage Banks vs. Equitable Banking Corporation 8 this Court had the occasion to rule on the validity of these rules as well as the jurisdiction of the PCHC as a forum for resolving disputes and controversies involving checks and other clearing items when it held that "the participation of two banks. . . in the Clearing Operations of the PCHC (was) a manifestation of its submission to its jurisdiction." 9

The applicable PCHC provisions on the question of jurisdiction provide:

Sec. 3 — AGREEMENT TO THESE RULES

It is the general agreement and understanding, that any participant in the PCHC MICR clearing operations, by the mere act of participation, thereby manifests its agreement to these Rules and Regulations, and its subsequent amendments.

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 36 — ARBITRATION

36.1 Any dispute or controversy between two or more clearing participants involving any check/item cleared thru PCHC shall be submitted to the Arbitration Committee, upon written complaint of any involved participant by filing the same with the PCHC serving the same upon the other party or parties, who shall within fifteen (15) days after receipt thereof, file with the Arbitration Committee its written answer to such written complaint and also within the same period serve the same upon the complaining participant. This period of fifteen (15) days may be extended by the Committee not more than once for another period of fifteen (15) days, but upon agreement in writing of the complaining party, said extension may be for such period as the latter may agree to.

Section 36.6 is even more emphatic:

36.6 The fact that a bank participates in the clearing operations of PCHC shall be deemed its written and subscribed consent to the binding effect of this arbitration agreement as if it had done so in accordance with Section 4 of the Republic Act No. 876 otherwise known as the Arbitration Law.

Thus, not only do the parties manifest by mere participation their consent to these rules, but such participation is deemed (their) written and subscribed consent to the binding effect of arbitration agreements under the PCHC rules. Moreover, a participant subject to the Clearing House Rules and Regulations of the PCHC may go on appeal to any of the Regional Trial Courts in the National Capital Region where the head office of any of the parties is located only after a decision or award has been rendered by the arbitration committee or arbitrator on questions of law. 10

Clearly therefore, petitioner Associated Bank, by its voluntary participation and its consent to the arbitration rules cannot go directly to the Regional Trial Court when it finds it convenient to do so. The jurisdiction of the PCHC under the rules and regulations is clear, undeniable and is particularly

2

applicable to all the parties in the third party complaint under their obligation to first seek redress of their disputes and grievances with the PCHC before going to the trial court.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. With costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 99042 September 26, 1994

BLOOMFIELD ACADEMY AND RODOLFO J. LAGERA, petitioners, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, BLOOMFIELD ACADEMY PARENTS ADVISORY ASSOCIATION, INC. (BAPAA), represented by its Vice-President, Menardo Bordeos; and The Hon. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 142, Makati, Metro Manila, respondents.

Villaranza & Cruz for petitioners.

San Buenaventura, Reyes, Moraleda (SAREM) Law Offices for private respondent.

VITUG, J.:

FACTS:

This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing, in CA-G.R. SP. No. 20846, the special civil action for certiorari that has assailed a writ of preliminary injunction issued by the court a quo.

We adopt, for purposes of this review, the case and factual settings recited by the appellate court in its decision. We quote:

The petition originated in a complaint for injunction filed onApril 6, 1990 by private respondent, the association of parents and guardians of students enrolled in petitioner. One of the defendants in the said case is petitioner which is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution. What is being disputed before respondent court is the increase in tuition fee.

On the date the complaint was filed, respondent court issued an order enjoining petitioners and Secretary Cariño and/or their agents, representatives or persons acting in their behalf from implementing their aforesaid increase in tuition fees, and not withholding their release of the report cards and/or other papers necessary for the students desiring to transfer to other schools until further orders from respondent court.The application for injunction was set for hearing on April 19, 1990 at2:00 p.m.

In the herein petition for review on certiorari before this Court, petitioners formulate the sole issue of whether or not the court a quo has acted within its jurisdiction in issuing the questioned order and, in the affirmative, whether or not it has committed grave abuse of discretion specifically in granting private respondent's application for a writ of preliminary injunction.

RULING:We see merit in the petition.

The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 6728, also commonly known as "An Act Providing Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education, And Appropriating Funds Therefor," provide:

Sec. 9. Further Assistance To Students in Private Colleges and Universities. — . . . .

(b) For students enrolled in schools charging above one thousand five hundred pesos (P1,500.00) per year in tuition and other fees during the school year 1988-1989 or such amount in subsequent years as may be determined from time to time by the State Assistance Council, no assistance for tuition fees shall be granted by the Government: Provided, however, That the schools concerned may raise their tuition fees subject to Section 10 hereof.

xxx xxx xxx

3

Sec. 10. Consultation. — In any proposed increase in the rate of tuition fee, there shall be appropriate consultations conducted by the school administration with the duly organized parents and teachers associations and faculty associations with respect to secondary schools, and with students governments or councils, alumni and faculty associations with respect to colleges. For this purpose, audited financial statements shall be made available to authorized representatives of these sectors. Every effort shall be exerted to reconcile possible differences. In case of disagreement, the alumni association of the school or any other impartial body of their choosing shall act as arbitrator.

Private respondent filed with the court a quo an action, entitled "Injunction with Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order" (docketed Civil Case No. 90-971), against petitioners and the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports ("DECS") seeking to stop the implementation of the increase in tuition fees by petitioner school. Private respondent asserted that the increase was adopted without the prior consultation required by law and that, in any case, the approved increase was exorbitant (at 21.22%). Petitioners, on their part, contended that the parties did, in fact, hold consultations at which the wage increase for teachers mandated by Republic Act 6727 and the resulting increase in tuition fees allowed by Republic Act No. 6728 were discussed at length. The Solicitor General, answering the complaint for and in behalf of the DECS Secretary, attested to the approval by DECS of a fifty percent (50%) tuition fee increase for the school year 1989-1990.

In passing, we also observe that the parties have both remained silent on the provisions of Republic Act No. 6728 to the effect that in case of disagreement on tuition fee increases (in this instance by herein private parties), the issue should be resolved through arbitration. Although the matter has not been raised by the parties, it is an aspect, nevertheless, in our view, that could have well been explored by them instead of immediately invoking, such as they apparently did, the administrative and judicial relief to resolve the controversy.

All told, we hold that the court a quo has been bereft of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of private respondent's complaint. We see no real justification, on the basis of the factual and case settings here obtaining, to permit a deviation from the long standing rule that the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any time even on appeal.

WHEREFORE, conformably with our above opinion, the instant petition is GRANTED and the questioned ordered of the court a quo and the decision of the appellate court are SET ASIDE. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-23390 April 24, 1967

MINDANAO PORTLAND CEMENT CORPORATION, petitioner-appellee, vs.McDONOUGH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF FLORIDA, respondent-appellant.

Gonzalo W. Gonzalez for respondent-appellant.Alberto B. Villaraza for petitioner-appellee.

BENGZON, J.P. J.:

FACTS:On February 13, 1961, petitioner Mindanao Portland Cement Corporation and respondent McDonough Construction Company of Florida, U.S.A., executed a contract1 for the construction by the respondent for the petitioner of a dry portland, cement plant at Iligan City. In a separate contract, Turnbull, Inc. — the "engineer" referred to in the construction contract — was engaged to design and manage the construction of the plant, supervise the construction, schedule deliveries and the construction work as well as check and certify ill contractors' progress and fiscal requests for payment.

Differences later arose. Petitioner claimed from respondent damages in the amount of more than P2,000,000 allegedly occasioned by the delay in the project's completion. Respondent in turn asked for more than P450,000 from petitioner for alleged losses due to cost of extra work and overhead as of April 1962. A conference was held on about May 29, 1962 between petitioner and Turnbull, Inc., on one hand, and respondent on the other, to settle the differences aforementioned, but no satisfactory results were reached.1äwphï1.ñët

Petitioner sent respondent, on August 8, 1962, and again on September 24,1962, written invitations to arbitrate, invoking a provision in their contract regarding arbitration of disputes.

Instead of answering said invitations, respondent, on November 14, 1962, with Turnbull, Inc.'s approval, submitted to petitioner for payment its final statement of work accomplished, asking for P403,700 as unpaid balance of the consideration of the contract.

Petitioner, on January 29, 1963, filed the present action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to compel respondent to arbitrate with it concerning alleged disputes arising from their contract. It averred inter alia that deletions and additions to the plans and specifications were agreed upon during the progress of the construction; that disagreement arose between them as to the cost of the additional or extra work done, and respondent's

4

deviation from some agreed specifications; that petitioner claims having overpaid respondent by P33,810.81; that petitioner further claims to have suffered damages due to respondent's delay in finishing the project; that respondent, on the other hand, still claims an unpaid balance of about P403,700; that these matters fall under the general arbitration clause of their contract; and that respondent has failed to proceed to arbitration despite several requests therefor.

Respondent filed, on February 23, 1963, its answer. It denied the alleged existence of disagreement between the parties. And as special defense, it alleged that its claim for P403,700 was not disputed and that the respective claims for damages should be resolved by Turnbull, Inc., pursuant to the exception in the arbitration clause of the construction contract.

After stipulation of facts and submission of documentary evidence, the court, on May 13, 1964, rendered its decision finding that dispute or disagreement obtained between the parties with respect to their rights and obligations under their contract and that the same should be submitted to arbitration pursuant to par. 39 of said contract — the arbitration clause — and to Republic Act 876 — the Arbitration Law. And thus it ordered petitioner and respondent to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of their contract.

Not satisfied with the ruling, respondent appealed therefrom to us to raise the purely legal question of whether under these facts respondent is duty-bound to submit to arbitration.

RULING:

The provision of the contract on "Arbitration of Disagreements" (par. 39) says:

39. In the event of disagreement between the Owner and the Contractor in respect of the rights or obligations of either of the parties hereunder except the interpretation of the plans and specifications and questions concerning the sufficiency of materials, the time, sequence and method of performing the work, which questions are to be finally determined by the Engineer, they shall submit the matter to arbitration, the Owner choosing one arbitrator, the Contractor one, and the two so chosen shall select a third. The decision of such arbitrators or a majority of them shall be made in writing to both parties and when so made shall be binding upon the parties thereto. (Emphasis supplied).

Respondent, herein appellant, contends first, that there is no showing of disagreement; and second, that if there is, the same falls under the exception, to be resolved by the engineer.

As to the first point, the fact of disagreement has been determined by the court below upon the stipulation of facts and documentary evidence submitted. In this appeal involving pure questions of law, the above finding should not be disturbed. Furthermore, the existence of disagreement is plainly shown in the record. Respondent admits the existence of petitioner's claim but denies its merit.4 It likewise admits that petitioner has refused to pay its claim for the unpaid balance of the price of the contract.5 Paragraph 8 of the stipulation of facts shows the dispute of the parties regarding their mutual claims and that said dispute remained unsettled:

The disputes involved here, on the other hand, are on (1) the proper computation of the total contract price,6 including the cost of additional or extra work;7 and (2) the liability for alleged delay in completing the project and for alleged losses due to change in the plans and specifications.

Since there obtains herein a written provision for arbitration as well as failure on respondent's part to comply therewith, the court a quo rightly ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of their agreement (Sec. 6, Republic Act 876). Respondent's arguments touching upon the merits of the dispute are improperly raised herein. They should be addressed to the arbitrators. This proceeding is merely a summary remedy to enforce the agreement to arbitrate. The duty of the court in this case is not to resolve the merits of the parties' claims but only to determine if they should proceed to arbitration or not. And although it has been ruled that a frivolous or patently baseless claim should not be ordered to arbitration, it is also recognized that the mere fact that a defense exists against a claim does not make it frivolous or baseless.9

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from, ordering the parties to proceed to arbitration according to the terms of their agreement, is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant. So ordered.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 161957 January 22, 2007

JORGE GONZALES and PANEL OF ARBITRATORS, Petitioners, vs.CLIMAX MINING LTD., CLIMAX-ARIMCO MINING CORP., and AUSTRALASIAN PHILIPPINES MINING INC., Respondents.

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

G.R. No. 167994 January 22, 2007

5

JORGE GONZALES, Petitioner, vs.HON. OSCAR B. PIMENTEL, in his capacity as PRESIDING JUDGE of BR. 148 of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT of MAKATI CITY, and CLIMAX-ARIMCO MINING CORPORATION, Respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

TINGA, J.:

FACTS:

This is a consolidation of two petitions rooted in the same disputed Addendum Contract entered into by the parties. In G.R. No. 161957, the Court in its Decision of 28 February 20051 denied the Rule 45 petition of petitioner Jorge Gonzales (Gonzales). It held that the DENR Panel of Arbitrators had no jurisdiction over the complaint for the annulment of the Addendum Contract on grounds of fraud and violation of the Constitution and that the action should have been brought before the regular courts as it involved judicial issues. Both parties filed separate motions for reconsideration. Gonzales avers in his Motion for Reconsideration2 that the Court erred in holding that the DENR Panel of Arbitrators was bereft of jurisdiction, reiterating its argument that the case involves a mining dispute that properly falls within the ambit of the Panel’s authority. Gonzales adds that the Court failed to rule on other issues he raised relating to the sufficiency of his complaint before the DENR Panel of Arbitrators and the timeliness of its filing.

Respondents Climax Mining Ltd., et al., (respondents) filed their Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or Clarification3 seeking reconsideration of that part of the Decision holding that the case should not be brought for arbitration under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 876, also known as the Arbitration Law.4 Respondents, citing American jurisprudence5 and the UNCITRAL Model Law,6 argue that the arbitration clause in the Addendum Contract should be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract, and that a claimed rescission of the main contract does not avoid the duty to arbitrate. Respondents add that Gonzales’s argument relating to the alleged invalidity of the Addendum Contract still has to be proven and adjudicated on in a proper proceeding; that is, an action separate from the motion to compel arbitration. Pending judgment in such separate action, the Addendum Contract remains valid and binding and so does the arbitration clause therein. Respondents add that the holding in the Decision that "the case should not be brought under the ambit of the Arbitration Law" appears to be premised on Gonzales’s having "impugn[ed] the existence or validity" of the addendum contract. If so, it supposedly conveys the idea that Gonzales’s unilateral repudiation of the contract or mere allegation of its invalidity is all it takes to avoid arbitration. Hence, respondents submit that the court’s holding that "the case should not be brought under the ambit of the Arbitration Law" be understood or clarified as operative only where the challenge to the arbitration agreement has been sustained by final judgment.

We first tackle the more recent case which is G.R. No. 167994. It stemmed from the petition to compel arbitration filed by respondent Climax-Arimco before the RTC of Makati City on 31 March 2000 while the complaint for the nullification of the Addendum Contract was pending before the DENR Panel of Arbitrators. On 23 March 2000, Climax-Arimco had sent Gonzales a Demand for Arbitration pursuant to Clause 19.111 of the Addendum Contract and also in accordance with Sec. 5 of R.A. No. 876. The petition for arbitration was subsequently filed and Climax-Arimco sought an order to compel the parties to arbitrate pursuant to the said arbitration clause. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-444, was initially raffled to Br. 132 of the RTC of Makati City, with Judge Herminio I. Benito as Presiding Judge. Respondent Climax-Arimco filed on 5 April 2000 a motion to set the application to compel arbitration for hearing.

Gonzales also cites Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 9285 or the "Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004:"

Sec. 24. Referral to Arbitration.—A court before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject matter of an arbitration agreement shall, if at least one party so requests not later than the pre-trial conference, or upon the request of both parties thereafter, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.

RULING:

The grounds Gonzales invokes for the revocation of the Addendum Contract—fraud and oppression in the execution thereof—are also not grounds for the revocation of the arbitration clause in the Contract, Climax-Arimco notes. Such grounds may only be raised by way of defense in the arbitration itself and cannot be used to frustrate or delay the conduct of arbitration proceedings. Instead, these should be raised in a separate action for rescission, it continues.

Climax-Arimco emphasizes that the summary proceeding to compel arbitration under Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 876 should not be confused with the procedure in Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 9285. Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 876 refers to an application to compel arbitration where the court’s authority is limited to resolving the issue of whether there is or there is no agreement in writing providing for arbitration, while Sec. 24 of R.A. No. 9285 refers to an ordinary action which covers a matter that appears to be arbitrable or subject to arbitration under the arbitration agreement. In the latter case, the statute is clear that the court, instead of trying the case, may, on request of either or both parties, refer the parties to arbitration, unless it finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. Arbitration may even be ordered in the same suit brought upon a matter covered by an arbitration agreement even without waiting for the outcome of the issue of the validity of the arbitration agreement. Art. 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law24 states that where a court before which an action is brought in a matter which is subject of an arbitration agreement refers the parties to arbitration, the arbitral proceedings may proceed even while the action is pending.

6

Thus, the main issue raised in the Petition for Certiorari is whether it was proper for the RTC, in the proceeding to compel arbitration under R.A. No. 876, to order the parties to arbitrate even though the defendant therein has raised the twin issues of validity and nullity of the Addendum Contract and, consequently, of the arbitration clause therein as well. The resolution of both Climax-Arimco’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or Clarification in G.R. No. 161957 and Gonzales’s Petition for Certiorari in G.R. No. 167994 essentially turns on whether the question of validity of the Addendum Contract bears upon the applicability or enforceability of the arbitration clause contained therein. The two pending matters shall thus be jointly resolved.

We address the Rule 65 petition in G.R. No. 167994 first from the remedial law perspective. It deserves to be dismissed on procedural grounds, as it was filed in lieu of appeal which is the prescribed remedy and at that far beyond the reglementary period. It is elementary in remedial law that the use of an erroneous mode of appeal is cause for dismissal of the petition for certiorari and it has been repeatedly stressed that a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. As its nature, a petition for certiorari lies only where there is "no appeal," and "no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."25 The Arbitration Law specifically provides for an appeal by certiorari, i.e., a petition for review under certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court that raises pure questions of law.26 There is no merit to Gonzales’s argument that the use of the permissive term "may" in Sec. 29, R.A. No. 876 in the filing of appeals does not prohibit nor discount the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.27 Proper interpretation of the aforesaid provision of law shows that the term "may" refers only to the filing of an appeal, not to the mode of review to be employed. Indeed, the use of "may" merely reiterates the principle that the right to appeal is not part of due process of law but is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with law.

The situation in B.F. Corporation is not availing in the present petition. The disquisition in B.F. Corporation led to the conclusion that in order that the question of jurisdiction may be resolved, the appellate court had to deal first with a question of law which could be addressed in a certiorari proceeding. In the present case, Gonzales’s petition raises a question of law, but not a question of jurisdiction. Judge Pimentel acted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in R.A. No. 876 when he ordered Gonzales to proceed with arbitration and appointed a sole arbitrator after making the determination that there was indeed an arbitration agreement. It has been held that as long as a court acts within its jurisdiction and does not gravely abuse its discretion in the exercise thereof, any supposed error committed by it will amount to nothing more than an error of judgment reviewable by a timely appeal and not assailable by a special civil action of certiorari.32 Even if we overlook the employment of the wrong remedy in the broader interests of justice, the petition would nevertheless be dismissed for failure of Gonzalez to show grave abuse of discretion.

Arbitration, as an alternative mode of settling disputes, has long been recognized and accepted in our jurisdiction. The Civil Code is explicit on the matter.33 R.A. No. 876 also expressly authorizes arbitration of domestic disputes. Foreign arbitration, as a system of settling commercial disputes of an international character, was likewise recognized when the Philippines adhered to the United Nations "Convention on the Recognition and the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958," under the 10 May 1965 Resolution No. 71 of the Philippine Senate, giving reciprocal recognition and allowing enforcement of international arbitration agreements between parties of different nationalities within a contracting state.34 The enactment of R.A. No. 9285 on 2 April 2004 further institutionalized the use of alternative dispute resolution systems, including arbitration, in the settlement of disputes.

Disputes do not go to arbitration unless and until the parties have agreed to abide by the arbitrator’s decision. Necessarily, a contract is required for arbitration to take place and to be binding. R.A. No. 876 recognizes the contractual nature of the arbitration agreement, thus:

Sec. 2. Persons and matters subject to arbitration.—Two or more persons or parties may submit to the arbitration of one or more arbitrators any controversy existing, between them at the time of the submission and which may be the subject of an action, or the parties to any contract may in such contract agree to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising between them. Such submission or contract shall be valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist at law for the revocation of any contract.

Such submission or contract may include question arising out of valuations, appraisals or other controversies which may be collateral, incidental, precedent or subsequent to any issue between the parties.

A controversy cannot be arbitrated where one of the parties to the controversy is an infant, or a person judicially declared to be incompetent, unless the appropriate court having jurisdiction approve a petition for permission to submit such controversy to arbitration made by the general guardian or guardian ad litem of the infant or of the incompetent. [Emphasis added.]

Thus, we held in Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Co.35 that a submission to arbitration is a contract. A clause in a contract providing that all matters in dispute between the parties shall be referred to arbitration is a contract,36 and in Del Monte Corporation-USA v. Court of Appeals37 that "[t]he provision to submit to arbitration any dispute arising therefrom and the relationship of the parties is part of that contract and is itself a contract. As a rule, contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties and produce effect as between them, their assigns and heirs."38

The special proceeding under Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 876 recognizes the contractual nature of arbitration clauses or agreements. It provides:

Sec. 6. Hearing by court.—A party aggrieved by the failure, neglect or refusal of another to perform under an agreement in writing providing for arbitration may petition the court for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement. Five days notice in writing of the hearing of such application shall be served either personally or by registered mail upon the party in default. The court shall hear the parties, and upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement or such failure to comply therewith is not in issue, shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement. If the making of the agreement or default be in issue the court shall proceed to summarily hear such issue. If the finding be that no agreement in writing providing for arbitration was made, or that there is no default in the proceeding thereunder, the proceeding shall be dismissed. If the finding be that a written provision for arbitration was made and there

7

is a default in proceeding thereunder, an order shall be made summarily directing the parties to proceed with the arbitration in accordance with the terms thereof.

There is reason, therefore, to rule against Gonzales when he alleges that Judge Pimentel acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the parties to proceed with arbitration. Gonzales’s argument that the Addendum Contract is null and void and, therefore the arbitration clause therein is void as well, is not tenable. First, the proceeding in a petition for arbitration under R.A. No. 876 is limited only to the resolution of the question of whether the arbitration agreement exists. Second, the separability of the arbitration clause from the Addendum Contract means that validity or invalidity of the Addendum Contract will not affect the enforceability of the agreement to arbitrate. Thus, Gonzales’s petition for certiorari should be dismissed.

This brings us back to G.R. No. 161957. The adjudication of the petition in G.R. No. 167994 effectively modifies part of the Decision dated 28 February 2005 in G.R. No. 161957. Hence, we now hold that the validity of the contract containing the agreement to submit to arbitration does not affect the applicability of the arbitration clause itself. A contrary ruling would suggest that a party’s mere repudiation of the main contract is sufficient to avoid arbitration. That is exactly the situation that the separability doctrine, as well as jurisprudence applying it, seeks to avoid. We add that when it was declared in G.R. No. 161957 that the case should not be brought for arbitration, it should be clarified that the case referred to is the case actually filed by Gonzales before the DENR Panel of Arbitrators, which was for the nullification of the main contract on the ground of fraud, as it had already been determined that the case should have been brought before the regular courts involving as it did judicial issues.

The Motion for Reconsideration of Gonzales in G.R. No. 161957 should also be denied. In the motion, Gonzales raises the same question of jurisdiction, more particularly that the complaint for nullification of the Addendum Contract pertained to the DENR Panel of Arbitrators, not the regular courts. He insists that the subject of his complaint is a mining dispute since it involves a dispute concerning rights to mining areas, the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) between the parties, and it also involves claimowners. He adds that the Court failed to rule on other issues he raised, such as whether he had ceded his claims over the mineral deposits located within the Addendum Area of Influence; whether the complaint filed before the DENR Panel of Arbitrators alleged ultimate facts of fraud; and whether the action to declare the nullity of the Addendum Contract on the ground of fraud has prescribed.1avvphi1.net

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari in G.R. No. 167994 is DISMISSED. Such dismissal effectively renders superfluous formal action on the Motion for Partial Reconsideration and/or Clarification filed by Climax Mining Ltd., et al. in G.R. No. 161957.

The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Jorge Gonzales in G.R. No. 161957 is DENIED WITH FINALITY.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 114323 July 23, 1998

OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION, petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and PACIFIC CEMENT COMPANY, INC., respondents.

MARTINEZ, J.:

FACTS:

This proceeding involves the enforcement of a foreign judgment rendered by the Civil Judge of Dehra Dun, India in favor of the petitioner, OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION and against the private respondent, PACIFIC CEMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED.

The petitioner is a foreign corporation owned and controlled by the Government of India while the private respondent is a private corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines. The present conflict between the petitioner and the private respondent has its roots in a contract entered into by and between both parties on February 26, 1983 whereby the private respondent undertook to supply the petitioner FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED (4,300) metric tons of oil well cement. In consideration therefor, the petitioner bound itself to pay the private respondent the amount of FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED U.S. DOLLARS ($477,300.00) by opening an irrevocable, divisible, and confirmed letter of credit in favor of the latter. The oil well cement was loaded on board the ship MV SURUTANA NAVA at the port of Surigao City, Philippines for delivery at Bombay and Calcutta, India. However, due to a dispute between the shipowner and the private respondent, the cargo was held up in Bangkok and did not reach its point destination. Notwithstanding the fact that the private respondent had

8

already received payment and despite several demands made by the petitioner, the private respondent failed to deliver the oil well cement. Thereafter, negotiations ensued between the parties and they agreed that the private respondent will replace the entire 4,300 metric tons of oil well cement with Class "G" cement cost free at the petitioner's designated port. However, upon inspection, the Class "G" cement did not conform to the petitioner's specifications. The petitioner then informed the private respondent that it was referring its claim to an arbitrator pursuant to Clause 16 of their contract which stipulates:

Except where otherwise provided in the supply order/contract all questions and disputes, relating to the meaning of the specification designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to quality of workmanship of the items ordered or as to any other question, claim, right or thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relating to the supply order/contract design, drawing, specification, instruction or these conditions or otherwise concerning the materials or the execution or failure to execute the same during stipulated/extended period or after the completion/abandonment thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the persons appointed by Member of the Commission at the time of dispute. It will be no objection to any such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is a Commission employer (sic) that he had to deal with the matter to which the supply or contract relates and that in the course of his duties as Commission's employee he had expressed views on all or any of the matter in dispute or difference.

The arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred being transferred or vacating his office or being unable to act for any reason the Member of the Commission shall appoint another person to act as arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the contract/supply order. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. Subject as aforesaid the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, or any Statutory modification or re-enactment there of and the rules made there under and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause.

The arbitrator may with the consent of parties enlarge the time, from time to time, to make and publish the award.

The venue for arbitration shall be at Dehra dun. 1*

On July 23, 1988, the chosen arbitrator, one Shri N.N. Malhotra, resolved the dispute in petitioner's favor setting forth the arbitral award as follows:

NOW THEREFORE after considering all facts of the case, the evidence, oral and documentarys adduced by the claimant and carefully examining the various written statements, submissions, letters, telexes, etc. sent by the respondent, and the oral arguments addressed by the counsel for the claimants, I, N.N. Malhotra, Sole Arbitrator, appointed under clause 16 of the supply order dated 26.2.1983, according to which the parties, i.e. M/S Oil and Natural Gas Commission and the Pacific Cement Co., Inc. can refer the dispute to the sole arbitration under the provision of the Arbitration Act. 1940, do hereby award and direct as follows: —

The Respondent will pay the following to the claimant: —

1. Amount received by the Respondent

against the letter of credit No. 11/19

dated 28.2.1983 US $ 477,300.00

2. Re-imbursement of expenditure incurred

by the claimant on the inspection team's

visit to Philippines in August 1985 US $ 3,881.00

3. L.C. Establishment charges incurred

by the claimant US $ 1,252.82

4. Loss of interest suffered by claimant

from 21.6.83 to 23.7.88 US $ 417,169.95

Total amount of award US $ 899,603.77

In addition to the above, the respondent would also be liable to pay to the claimant the interest at the rate of 6% on the above amount, with effect from 24.7.1988 up to the actual date of payment by the Respondent in full settlement of the claim as awarded or the date of the decree, whichever is earlier.

I determine the cost at Rs. 70,000/- equivalent to US $5,000 towards the expenses on Arbitration, legal expenses, stamps duly incurred by the claimant. The cost will be shared by the parties in equal proportion.

Pronounced at Dehra Dun to-day, the 23rd of July 1988. 2

9

To enable the petitioner to execute the above award in its favor, it filed a Petition before the Court of the Civil Judge in Dehra Dun. India (hereinafter referred to as the foreign court for brevity), praying that the decision of the arbitrator be made "the Rule of Court" in India. The foreign court issued notices to the private respondent for filing objections to the petition. The private respondent complied and sent its objections dated January 16, 1989. Subsequently, the said court directed the private respondent to pay the filing fees in order that the latter's objections could be given consideration. Instead of paying the required filing fees, the private respondent sent the following communication addressed to the Civil judge of Dehra Dun:

The Civil Judge

Dehra Dun (U.P.) India

Re: Misc. Case No. 5 of 1989

M/S Pacific Cement Co.,

Inc. vs. ONGC Case

Sir:

1. We received your letter dated 28 April 1989 only last 18 May 1989.

2. Please inform us how much is the court fee to be paid. Your letter did not mention the amount to be paid.

3. Kindly give us 15 days from receipt of your letter advising us how much to pay to comply with the same.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Pacific Cement Co., Inc.

By:

Jose Cortes, Jr.

President 3

Without responding to the above communication, the foreign court refused to admit the private respondent's objections for failure to pay the required filing fees, and thereafter issued an Order on February 7, 1990, to wit:

ORDER

Since objections filed by defendant have been rejected through Misc. Suit No. 5 on 7.2.90, therefore, award should be made Rule of the Court.

ORDER

Award dated 23.7.88, Paper No. 3/B-1 is made Rule of the Court. On the basis of conditions of award decree is passed. Award Paper No. 3/B-1 shall be a part of the decree. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to get from defendant (US$ 899,603.77 (US$ Eight Lakhs ninety nine thousand six hundred and three point seventy seven only) along with 9% interest per annum till the last date of realisation. 4

Despite notice sent to the private respondent of the foregoing order and several demands by the petitioner for compliance therewith, the private respondent refused to pay the amount adjudged by the foreign court as owing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a complaint with Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City for the enforcement of the aforementioned judgment of the foreign court. The private respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: (1) plaintiffs lack of legal capacity to sue; (2) lack of cause of action; and (3) plaintiffs claim or demand has been waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished. The petitioner filed its opposition to the said motion to dismiss, and the private respondent, its rejoinder thereto. On January 3, 1992, the RTC issued an order upholding the petitioner's legal capacity to sue, albeit dismissing the complaint for lack of a valid cause of action. The RTC held that the rule prohibiting foreign corporations transacting business in the Philippines without a license from maintaining a suit in Philippine courts admits of an exception, that is, when the foreign corporation is suing on an isolated transaction as in this case. 5 Anent the issue of the sufficiency of the petitioner's cause of action, however, the RTC found the referral of the dispute between the parties to the arbitrator under Clause 16 of their contract erroneous. According to the RTC,

[a] perusal of the shove-quoted clause (Clause 16) readily shows that the matter covered by its terms is limited to "ALL QUESTIONS AND DISPUTES, RELATING TO THE MEANING OF THE SPECIFICATION, DESIGNS, DRAWINGS AND INSTRUCTIONS HEREIN BEFORE MENTIONED and as to the QUALITY OF WORKMANSHIP OF THE ITEMS ORDERED or as to any other questions, claim, right or thing whatsoever, but qualified to "IN ANY WAY ARISING OR RELATING TO THE SUPPLY ORDER/CONTRACT, DESIGN, DRAWING, SPECIFICATION, etc.," repeating the enumeration in the opening sentence of the clause.

10

The court is inclined to go along with the observation of the defendant that the breach, consisting of the non-delivery of the purchased materials, should have been properly litigated before a court of law, pursuant to Clause No. 15 of the Contract/Supply Order, herein quoted, to wit:

"JURISDICTION

All questions, disputes and differences, arising under out of or in connection with this supply order, shall be subject to the EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction and the place from which this supply order is situated." 6

RULING:

The petitioner then appealed to the respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. In its decision, the appellate court concurred with the RTC's ruling that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction over the dispute between the parties, thus, the foreign court could not validly adopt the arbitrator's award. In addition, the appellate court observed that the full text of the judgment of the foreign court contains the dispositive portion only and indicates no findings of fact and law as basis for the award. Hence, the said judgment cannot be enforced by any Philippine court as it would violate the constitutional provision that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. 8 The appellate court ruled further that the dismissal of the private respondent's objections for non-payment of the required legal fees, without the foreign court first replying to the private respondent's query as to the amount of legal fees to be paid, constituted want of notice or violation of due process. Lastly, it pointed out that the arbitration proceeding was defective because the arbitrator was appointed solely by the petitioner, and the fact that the arbitrator was a former employee of the latter gives rise to a presumed bias on his part in favor of the petitioner. 9

The petitioner's interpretation that Clause 16 is of such latitude as to contemplate even the non-delivery of the oil well cement would in effect render Clause 15 a mere superfluity. A perusal of Clause 16 shows that the parties did not intend arbitration to be the sole means of settling disputes. This is manifest from Clause 16 itself which is prefixed with the proviso, "Except where otherwise provided in the supply order/contract . . .", thus indicating that the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is not all encompassing, and admits of exceptions as may be provided elsewhere in the supply order/contract. We believe that the correct interpretation to give effect to both stipulations in the contract is for Clause 16 to be confined to all claims or disputes arising from or relating to the design, drawing, instructions, specifications or quality of the materials of the supply order/contract, and for Clause 15 to cover all other claims or disputes.

The petitioner then asseverates that granting, for the sake of argument, that the non-delivery of the oil well cement is not a proper subject for arbitration, the failure of the replacement cement to conform to the specifications of the contract is a matter clearly falling within the ambit of Clause 16. In this contention, we find merit. When the 4,300 metric tons of oil well cement were not delivered to the petitioner, an agreement was forged between the latter and the private respondent that Class "G" cement would be delivered to the petitioner as replacement. Upon inspection, however, the replacement cement was rejected as it did not conform to the specifications of the contract. Only after this latter circumstance was the matter brought before the arbitrator. Undoubtedly, what was referred to arbitration was no longer the mere non-delivery of the cargo at the first instance but also the failure of the replacement cargo to conform to the specifications of the contract, a matter clearly within the coverage of Clause 16.

The private respondent posits that it was under no legal obligation to make replacement and that it undertook the latter only "in the spirit of liberality and to foster good business relationship". 20 Hence, the undertaking to deliver the replacement cement and its subsequent failure to conform to specifications are not anymore subject of the supply order/contract or any of the provisions thereof. We disagree.

As per Clause 7 of the supply order/contract, the private respondent undertook to deliver the 4,300 metric tons of oil well cement at "BOMBAY (INDIA) 2181 MT and CALCUTTA 2119 MT". 21 The failure of the private respondent to deliver the cargo to the designated places remains undisputed. Likewise, the fact that the petitioner had already paid for the cost of the cement is not contested by the private respondent. The private respondent claims, however, that it never benefited from the transaction as it was not able to recover the cargo that was unloaded at the port of Bangkok. 22 First of all, whether or not the private respondent was able to recover the cargo is immaterial to its subsisting duty to make good its promise to deliver the cargo at the stipulated place of delivery. Secondly, we find it difficult to believe this representation. In its Memorandum filed before this Court, the private respondent asserted that the Civil Court of Bangkok had already ruled that the non-delivery of the cargo was due solely to the fault of the carrier. 23 It is, therefore, but logical to assume that the necessary consequence of this finding is the eventual recovery by the private respondent of the cargo or the value thereof. What inspires credulity is not that the replacement was done in the spirit of liberality but that it was undertaken precisely because of the private respondent's recognition of its duty to do so under the supply order/contract, Clause 16 of which remains in force and effect until the full execution thereof.

The private respondent bewails the presumed bias on the part of the arbitrator who was a former employee of the petitioner. This point deserves scant consideration in view of the following stipulation in the contract:

. . . . It will be no objection any such appointment that the arbitrator so appointed is a Commission employer (sic) that he had to deal with the matter to which the supply or contract relates and that in the course of his duties as Commission's employee he had expressed views on all or any of the matter in dispute or difference. 37 (Emphasis supplied.)

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED, and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining the trial court's dismissal of the OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION's complaint in Civil Case No. 4006 before Branch 30 of the RTC of Surigao City is REVERSED, and another in its stead is hereby rendered ORDERING private respondent PACIFIC CEMENT COMPANY, INC. to pay to petitioner the amounts adjudged in the foreign judgment subject of said case.

11

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 129916 March 26, 2001

MAGELLAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and MAGELLAN CAPITAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION, petitioners, vs.ROLANDO M. ZOSA and HON. JOSE P. SOBERANO, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 58 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, 7th Judicial Region, respondents.

BUENA, J.:

FACTS:

Under a management agreement entered into on March 18, 1994, Magellan Capital Holdings Corporation [MCHC] appointed Magellan Capital Management Corporation [MCMC] as manager for the operation of its business and affairs.1 Pursuant thereto, on the same month, MCHC, MCMC, and private respondent Rolando M. Zosa entered into an "Employment Agreement" designating Zosa as President and Chief Executive Officer of MCHC.

Under the "Employment Agreement", the term of respondent Zosa's employment shall be co-terminous with the management agreement, or until March 1996,2 unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of the Employment Agreement.3 The grounds for termination of employment are also provided in the Employment Agreement.

On May 10, 1995, the majority of MCHC's Board of Directors decided not to re-elect respondent Zosa as President and Chief Executive Officer of MCHC on account of loss of trust and confidence4 arising from alleged violation of the resolution issued by MCHC's board of directors and of the non-competition clause of the Employment Agreement.5 Nevertheless, respondent Zosa was elected to a new position as MCHC's Vice-Chairman/Chairman for New Ventures Development.6

On September 26, 1995, respondent Zosa communicated his resignation for good reason from the position of Vice-Chairman under paragraph 7 of the Employment Agreement on the ground that said position had less responsibility and scope than President and Chief Executive Officer. He demanded that he be given termination benefits as provided for in Section 8 (c) (i) (ii) and (iii) of the Employment Agreement.7

In a letter dated October 20, 1995, MCHC communicated its non-acceptance of respondent Zosa's resignation for good reason, but instead informed him that the Employment Agreement is terminated for cause, effective November 19, 1995, in accordance with Section 7 (a) (v) of the said agreement, on account of his breach of Section 12 thereof. Respondent Zosa was further advised that he shall have no further rights under the said Agreement or any claims against the Manager or the Corporation except the right to receive within thirty (30) days from November 19, 1995, the amounts stated in Section 8 (a) (i) (ii) of the Agreement.8

Disagreeing with the position taken by petitioners, respondent Zosa invoked the Arbitration Clause of the Employment Agreement, to wit:

"23. Arbitration. In the event that any dispute, controversy or claim arises out of or under any provisions of this Agreement, then the parties hereto agree to submit such dispute, controversy or claim to arbitration as set forth in this Section and the determination to be made in such arbitration shall be final and binding. Arbitration shall be effected by a panel of three arbitrators. The Manager, Employee and Corporation shall designate one (1) arbitrator who shall, in turn, nominate and elect who among them shall be the chairman of the committee. Any such arbitration, including the rendering of an arbitration award, shall take place in Metro Manila. The arbitrators shall interpret this Agreement in accordance with the substantive laws of the Republic of the Philippines. The arbitrators shall have no power to add to, subtract from or otherwise modify the terms of Agreement or to grant injunctive relief of any nature. Any judgment upon the award of the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof, with costs of the arbitration to be borne equally by the parties, except that each party shall pay the fees and expenses of its own counsel in the arbitration."

On November 10, 1995, respondent Zosa designated his brother, Atty. Francis Zosa, as his representative in the arbitration panel9 while MCHC designated Atty. Inigo S. Fojas10 and MCMC nominated Atty. Enrique I. Quiason11 as their respective representatives in the arbitration panel. However, instead of submitting the dispute to arbitration, respondent Zosa, on April 17, 1996, filed an action for damages against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu12 to enforce his benefits under the Employment Agreement.

On July 3, 1996, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss13 arguing that (1) the trial court has no jurisdiction over the instant case since respondent Zosa's claims should be resolved through arbitration pursuant to Section 23 of the Employment Agreement with petitioners; and (2) the venue is improperly laid since respondent Zosa, like the petitioners, is a resident of Pasig City and thus, the venue of this case, granting without admitting that the respondent has a cause of action against the petitioners cognizable by the RTC, should be limited only to RTC-Pasig City.14

12

Meanwhile, respondent Zosa filed an amended complaint dated July 5, 1996.

On August 1, 1996, the RTC Branch 58 of Cebu City issued an Order denying petitioners motion to dismiss upon the findings that (1) the validity and legality of the arbitration provision can only be determined after trial on the merits; and (2) the amount of damages claimed, which is over P100,000.00, falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC.15 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the RTC in an order dated September 5, 1996.16

In the interim, on August 22, 1996, in compliance with the earlier order of the court directing petitioners to file responsive pleading to the amended complaint, petitioners filed their Answer Ad Cautelam with counterclaim reiterating their position that the dispute should be settled through arbitration and the court had no jurisdiction over the nature of the action.17

ISSUES:

"Whether or not the Arbitration Clause contained in Sec. 23 of the Employment Agreement is void and of no effect: and, if it is void and of no effect, whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to damages in accordance with his complaint and the defendants in accordance with their counterclaim.

"It is understood, that in the event the arbitration clause is valid and binding between the parties, the parties shall submit their respective claim to the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the said arbitration clause, in which event, this case shall be deemed dismissed."18

RULING:

We rule against the petitioners.

It is error for the petitioners to claim that the case should fall under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC, for brevity]. The controversy does not in anyway involve the election/appointment of officers of petitioner MCHC, as claimed by petitioners in their assignment of errors. Respondent Zosa's amended complaint focuses heavily on the illegality of the Employment Agreement's "Arbitration Clause" initially invoked by him in seeking his termination benefits under Section 8 of the employment contract. And under Republic Act No. 876, otherwise known as the "Arbitration Law," it is the regional trial court which exercises jurisdiction over questions relating to arbitration. We thus advert to the following discussions made by the Court of Appeals, speaking thru Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes,25 in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 43059, viz.

"As regards the fourth assigned error, asserting that jurisdiction lies with the SEC, which is raised for the first time in this petition, suffice it to state that the Amended Complaint squarely put in issue the question whether the Arbitration Clause is valid and effective between the parties. Although the controversy which spawned the action concerns the validity of the termination of the service of a corporate officer, the issue on the validity and effectivity of the arbitration clause is determinable by the regular courts, and do not fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the SEC.

"The determination and validity of the agreement is not a matter intrinsically connected with the regulation and internal affairs of corporations (see Pereyra vs. IAC, 181 SCRA 244; Sales vs. SEC, 169 SCRA 121); it is rather an ordinary case to be decided in accordance with the general laws, and do not require any particular expertise or training to interpret and apply (Viray vs. CA, 191 SCRA 308)."26

Furthermore, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43059 affirming the trial court's assumption of jurisdiction over the case has become the "law of the case" which now binds the petitioners. The "law of the case" doctrine has been defined as "a term applied to an established rule that when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the cause to the lower court for further proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent appeal."27 To note, the CA's decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 43059 has already attained finality as evidenced by a Resolution of this Court ordering entry of judgment of said case, to wit:

Even if procedural rules are disregarded, and a scrutiny of the merits of the case is undertaken, this Court finds the trial court's observations on why the composition of the panel of arbitrators should be voided, incisively correct so as to merit our approval. Thus,

"From the memoranda of both sides, the Court is of the view that the defendants [petitioner] MCMC and MCHC represent the same interest. There is no quarrel that both defendants are entirely two different corporations with personalities distinct and separate from each other and that a corporation has a personality distinct and separate from those persons composing the corporation as well as from that of any other legal entity to which it may be related.

"But as the defendants [herein petitioner] represent the same interest, it could never be expected, in the arbitration proceedings, that they would not protect and preserve their own interest, much less, would both or either favor the interest of the plaintiff. The arbitration law, as all other laws, is intended for the good and welfare of everybody. In fact, what is being challenged by the plaintiff herein is not the law itself but the provision of the Employment Agreement based on the said law, which is the arbitration clause but only as regards the composition of the panel of arbitrators. The arbitration clause in question provides, thus:

'In the event that any dispute, controversy or claim arise out of or under any provisions of this Agreement, then the parties hereto agree to submit such dispute, controversy or claim to arbitration as set forth in this Section and the determination to be made in such arbitration shall be final and binding. Arbitration shall be effected by a panel of three arbitrators. The Manager, Employee, and Corporation shall designate one (1) arbitrator who shall, in turn, nominate and elect as who among them shall be the chairman of the committee. Any such arbitration, including the rendering of an arbitration award, shall take place in Metro Manila. The arbitrators shall interpret this Agreement in accordance with the substantive laws of the Republic of the Philippines. The arbitrators shall have no power to add to, subtract from or otherwise modify the terms of this Agreement or to grant

13

injunctive relief of any nature. Any judgment upon the award of the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof, with costs of the arbitration to be borne equally by the parties, except that each party shall pay the fees and expenses of its own counsel in the arbitration.' (Emphasis supplied).

"From the foregoing arbitration clause, it appears that the two (2) defendants [petitioners] (MCMC and MCHC) have one (1) arbitrator each to compose the panel of three (3) arbitrators. As the defendant MCMC is the Manager of defendant MCHC, its decision or vote in the arbitration proceeding would naturally and certainly be in favor of its employer and the defendant MCHC would have to protect and preserve its own interest; hence, the two (2) votes of both defendants (MCMC and MCHC) would certainly be against the lone arbitrator for the plaintiff [herein defendant]. Hence, apparently, plaintiff [defendant] would never get or receive justice and fairness in the arbitration proceedings from the panel of arbitrators as provided in the aforequoted arbitration clause. In fairness and justice to the plaintiff [defendant], the two defendants (MCMC and MCHC) [herein petitioners] which represent the same interest should be considered as one and should be entitled to only one arbitrator to represent them in the arbitration proceedings. Accordingly, the arbitration clause, insofar as the composition of the panel of arbitrators is concerned should be declared void and of no effect, because the law says, "Any clause giving one of the parties power to choose more arbitrators than the other is void and of no effect" (Article 2045, Civil Code).

"The dispute or controversy between the defendants (MCMC and MCHC) [herein petitioners] and the plaintiff [herein defendant] should be settled in the arbitration proceeding in accordance with the Employment Agreement, but under the panel of three (3) arbitrators, one (1) arbitrator to represent the plaintiff, one (1) arbitrator to represent both defendants (MCMC and MCHC) [herein petitioners] and the third arbitrator to be chosen by the plaintiff [defendant Zosa] and defendants [petitioners].

"xxx xxx xxx"30

In this connection, petitioners' attempt to put respondent in estoppel in assailing the arbitration clause must be struck down. For one, this issue of estoppel, as likewise noted by the Court of Appeals, found its way for the first time only on appeal. Well-settled is the rule that issues not raised below cannot be resolved on review in higher courts.31 Secondly, employment agreements such as the one at bar are usually contracts of adhesion. Any ambiguity in its provisions is generally resolved against the party who drafted the document. Thus, in the relatively recent case of Phil. Federation of Credit Cooperatives, Inc. (PFCCI) and Fr. Benedicto Jayoma vs. NLRC and Victoria Abril,32 we had the occasion to stress that "where a contract of employment, being a contract of adhesion, is ambiguous, any ambiguity therein should be construed strictly against the party who prepared it." And, finally, respondent Zosa never submitted himself to arbitration proceedings (as there was none yet) before bewailing the composition of the panel of arbitrators. He in fact, lost no time in assailing the "arbitration clause" upon realizing the inequities that may mar the arbitration proceedings if the existing line-up of arbitrators remained unchecked.

We need only to emphasize in closing that arbitration proceedings are designed to level the playing field among the parties in pursuit of a mutually acceptable solution to their conflicting claims. Any arrangement or scheme that would give undue advantage to a party in the negotiating table is anathema to the very purpose of arbitration and should, therefore, be resisted.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the decision of the trial court dated July 18, 1997 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 120105 March 27, 1998

BF CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, SHANGRI-LA PROPERTIES, INC., RUFO B. COLAYCO, ALFREDO C. RAMOS, MAXIMO G. LICAUCO III and BENJAMIN C. RAMOS, respondents.

ROMERO, J.:

FACTS:

The basic issue in this petition for review on certiorari is whether or not the contract for the construction of the EDSA Plaza between petitioner BF Corporation and respondent Shangri-la Properties, Inc. embodies an arbitration clause in case of disagreement between the parties in the implementation of contractual provisions.

14

Petitioner and respondent Shangri-la Properties, Inc. (SPI) entered into an agreement whereby the latter engaged the former to construct the main structure of the "EDSA Plaza Project," a shopping mall complex in the City of Mandaluyong. The construction work was in progress when SPI decided to expand the project by engaging the services of petitioner again. Thus, the parties entered into an agreement for the main contract works after which construction work began.

However, petitioner incurred delay in the construction work that SPI considered as "serious and substantial." 1 On the other hand, according to petitioner, the construction works "progressed in faithful compliance with the First Agreement until a fire broke out on November 30, 1990 damaging Phase I" of the Project. 2 Hence, SPI proposed the re-negotiation of the agreement between them.

Consequently, on May 30, 1991, petitioner and SPI entered into a written agreement denominated as "Agreement for the Execution of Builder's Work for the EDSA Plaza Project." Said agreement would cover the construction work on said project as of May 1, 1991 until its eventual completion.

According to SPI, petitioner "failed to complete the construction works and abandoned the project." 3 This resulted in disagreements between the parties as regards their respective liabilities under the contract. On July 12, 1993, upon SPI's initiative, the parties' respective representatives met in conference but they failed to come to an agreement. 4

Barely two days later or on July 14, 1993, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig a complaint for collection of the balance due under the construction agreement. Named defendants therein were SPI and members of its board of directors namely, Alfredo C. Ramos, Rufo B. Calayco, Antonio B. Olbes, Gerardo O. Lanuza, Jr., Maximo G. Licauco III and Benjamin C. Ramos.

On August 3, 1993, SPI and its co-defendants filed a motion to suspend proceedings instead of filing an answer. The motion was anchored on defendants' allegation that the formal trade contract for the construction of the project provided for a clause requiring prior resort to arbitration before judicial intervention could be invoked in any dispute arising from the contract. The following day, SPI submitted a copy of the conditions of the contract containing the arbitration clause that it failed to append to its motion to suspend proceedings.

RULING:

This Court notes, however, that the 'Conditions of Contract' referred to, contains the following provisions:

3. Contract Document.

Three copies of the Contract Documents referred to in the Articles of Agreement shall be signed by the parties to the contract and distributed to the Owner and the Contractor for their safe keeping." (emphasis supplied).

And it is significant to note further that the said "Conditions of Contract" is not duly signed by the parties on any page thereof — although it bears the initials of BF's representatives (Bayani F. Fernando and Reynaldo M. de la Cruz) without the initials thereon of any representative of Shangri-La Properties, Inc.

Considering the insistence of the plaintiff that the said Conditions of Contract was not duly executed or signed by the parties, and the failure of the defendants to submit any signed copy of the said document, this Court entertains serious doubt whether or not the arbitration clause found in the said Conditions of Contract is binding upon the parties to the Articles of Agreement." (Emphasis supplied.)

RULING:

Hence, this petition before this Court. Petitioner assigns the following errors:

In the same vein, this Court holds that the question of the existence of the arbitration clause in the contract between petitioner and private respondents is a legal issue that must be determined in this petition for review on certiorari.

In other words, petitioner denies the existence of the arbitration clause primarily on the ground that the representatives of the contracting corporations did not sign the "Conditions of Contract" that contained the said clause. Its other contentions, specifically that insinuating fraud as regards the alleged insertion of the arbitration clause, are questions of fact that should have been threshed out below.

This Court may as well proceed to determine whether the arbitration clause does exist in the parties' contract. Republic Act No. 876 provides for the formal requisites of an arbitration agreement as follows:

Sec. 4. Form of arbitration agreement. — A contract to arbitrate a controversy thereafter arising between the parties, as well as a submission to arbitrate an existing controversy, shall be in writing and subscribed by the party sought to be charged, or by his lawful agent.

The making of a contract or submission for arbitration described in section two hereof, providing for arbitration of any controversy, shall be deemed a consent of the parties of the province or city where any of the parties resides, to enforce such contract of submission. (Emphasis supplied.).

The formal requirements of an agreement to arbitrate are therefore the following: (a) it must be in writing and (b) it must be subscribed by the parties or their representatives. There is no denying that the parties entered into a written contract that was submitted in evidence before the lower court. To

15

"subscribe" means to write underneath, as one's name; to sign at the end of a document. 11 That word may sometimes be construed to mean to give consent to or to attest. 12

The Court finds that, upon a scrutiny of the records of this case, these requisites were complied with in the contract in question. The Articles of Agreement, which incorporates all the other contracts and agreements between the parties, was signed by representatives of both parties and duly notarized. The failure of the private respondent's representative to initial the "Conditions of Contract" would therefor not affect compliance with the formal requirements for arbitration agreements because that particular portion of the covenants between the parties was included by reference in the Articles of Agreement.

Petitioner's contention that there was no arbitration clause because the contract incorporating said provision is part of a "hodge-podge" document, is therefore untenable. A contract need not be contained in a single writing. It may be collected from several different writings which do not conflict with each other and which, when connected, show the parties, subject matter, terms and consideration, as in contracts entered into by correspondence. 13 A contract may be encompassed in several instruments even though every instrument is not signed by the parties, since it is sufficient if the unsigned instruments are clearly identified or referred to and made part of the signed instrument or instruments. Similarly, a written agreement of which there are two copies, one signed by each of the parties, is binding on both to the same extent as though there had been only one copy of the agreement and both had signed it. 14

The arbitration clause provides for a "reasonable time" within which the parties may avail of the relief under that clause. "Reasonableness" is a relative term and the question of whether the time within which an act has to be done is reasonable depends on attendant circumstances. 15 This Court finds that under the circumstances obtaining in this case, a one-month period from the time the parties held a conference on July 12, 1993 until private respondent SPI notified petitioner that it was invoking the arbitration clause, is a reasonable time. Indeed, petitioner may not be faulted for resorting to the court to claim what was due it under the contract. However, we find its denial of the existence of the arbitration clause as an attempt to cover up its misstep in hurriedly filing the complaint before the lower court.

In this connection, it bears stressing that the lower court has not lost its jurisdiction over the case. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 876 provides that proceedings therein have only been stayed. After the special proceeding of arbitration 16 has been pursued and completed, then the lower court may confirm the award 17 made by the arbitrator.

It should be noted that in this jurisdiction, arbitration has been held valid and constitutional. Even before the approval on June 19, 1953 of Republic Act No. 876, this Court has countenanced the settlement of disputes through arbitration. 18 Republic Act No. 876 was adopted to supplement the New Civil Code's provisions on arbitration. 19 Its potentials as one of the alternative dispute resolution methods that are now rightfully vaunted as "the wave of the future" in international relations, is recognized worldwide. To brush aside a contractual agreement calling for arbitration in case of disagreement between the parties would therefore be a step backward.

WHEREFORE, the questioned Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED and the petition for certiorari DENIED. This Decision is immediately executory. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 143581 January 7, 2008

KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., petitioner, vs.HON. ALBERTO A. LERMA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 256 of Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, and PACIFIC GENERAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

VELASCO, JR., J.:

FACTS:

In our jurisdiction, the policy is to favor alternative methods of resolving disputes, particularly in civil and commercial disputes. Arbitration along with mediation, conciliation, and negotiation, being inexpensive, speedy and less hostile methods have long been favored by this Court. The petition before us puts at issue an arbitration clause in a contract mutually agreed upon by the parties stipulating that they would submit themselves to arbitration in a foreign country. Regrettably, instead of hastening the resolution of their dispute, the parties wittingly or unwittingly prolonged the controversy.

16

Petitioner Korea Technologies Co., Ltd. (KOGIES) is a Korean corporation which is engaged in the supply and installation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Cylinder manufacturing plants, while private respondent Pacific General Steel Manufacturing Corp. (PGSMC) is a domestic corporation.

On March 5, 1997, PGSMC and KOGIES executed a Contract1 whereby KOGIES would set up an LPG Cylinder Manufacturing Plant in Carmona, Cavite. The contract was executed in the Philippines. On April 7, 1997, the parties executed, in Korea, an Amendment for Contract No. KLP-970301 dated March 5, 19972 amending the terms of payment. The contract and its amendment stipulated that KOGIES will ship the machinery and facilities necessary for manufacturing LPG cylinders for which PGSMC would pay USD 1,224,000. KOGIES would install and initiate the operation of the plant for which PGSMC bound itself to pay USD 306,000 upon the plant’s production of the 11-kg. LPG cylinder samples. Thus, the total contract price amounted to USD 1,530,000.

On October 14, 1997, PGSMC entered into a Contract of Lease3 with Worth Properties, Inc. (Worth) for use of Worth’s 5,079-square meter property with a 4,032-square meter warehouse building to house the LPG manufacturing plant. The monthly rental was PhP 322,560 commencing on January 1, 1998 with a 10% annual increment clause. Subsequently, the machineries, equipment, and facilities for the manufacture of LPG cylinders were shipped, delivered, and installed in the Carmona plant. PGSMC paid KOGIES USD 1,224,000.

On June 15, 1998, KOGIES wrote PGSMC informing the latter that PGSMC could not unilaterally rescind their contract nor dismantle and transfer the machineries and equipment on mere imagined violations by KOGIES. It also insisted that their disputes should be settled by arbitration as agreed upon in Article 15, the arbitration clause of their contract.

On June 23, 1998, PGSMC again wrote KOGIES reiterating the contents of its June 1, 1998 letter threatening that the machineries, equipment, and facilities installed in the plant would be dismantled and transferred on July 4, 1998. Thus, on July 1, 1998, KOGIES instituted an Application for Arbitration before the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) in Seoul, Korea pursuant to Art. 15 of the Contract as amended.

On July 3, 1998, KOGIES filed a Complaint for Specific Performance, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-1178 against PGSMC before the Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) on July 4, 1998, which was subsequently extended until July 22, 1998. In its complaint, KOGIES alleged that PGSMC had initially admitted that the checks that were stopped were not funded but later on claimed that it stopped payment of the checks for the reason that "their value was not received" as the former allegedly breached their contract by "altering the quantity and lowering the quality of the machinery and equipment" installed in the plant and failed to make the plant operational although it earlier certified to the contrary as shown in a January 22, 1998 Certificate. Likewise, KOGIES averred that PGSMC violated Art. 15 of their Contract, as amended, by unilaterally rescinding the contract without resorting to arbitration. KOGIES also asked that PGSMC be restrained from dismantling and transferring the machinery and equipment installed in the plant which the latter threatened to do on July 4, 1998.

On July 9, 1998, PGSMC filed an opposition to the TRO arguing that KOGIES was not entitled to the TRO since Art. 15, the arbitration clause, was null and void for being against public policy as it ousts the local courts of jurisdiction over the instant controversy.

On July 29, 1998, KOGIES filed its Reply to Answer and Answer to Counterclaim.11 KOGIES denied it had altered the quantity and lowered the quality of the machinery, equipment, and facilities it delivered to the plant. It claimed that it had performed all the undertakings under the contract and had already produced certified samples of LPG cylinders. It averred that whatever was unfinished was PGSMC’s fault since it failed to procure raw materials due to lack of funds. KOGIES, relying on Chung Fu Industries (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals,12 insisted that the arbitration clause was without question valid.

After KOGIES filed a Supplemental Memorandum with Motion to Dismiss13 answering PGSMC’s memorandum of July 22, 1998 and seeking dismissal of PGSMC’s counterclaims, KOGIES, on August 4, 1998, filed its Motion for Reconsideration14 of the July 23, 1998 Order denying its application for an injunctive writ claiming that the contract was not merely for machinery and facilities worth USD 1,224,000 but was for the sale of an "LPG manufacturing plant" consisting of "supply of all the machinery and facilities" and "transfer of technology" for a total contract price of USD 1,530,000 such that the dismantling and transfer of the machinery and facilities would result in the dismantling and transfer of the very plant itself to the great prejudice of KOGIES as the still unpaid owner/seller of the plant. Moreover, KOGIES points out that the arbitration clause under Art. 15 of the Contract as amended was a valid arbitration stipulation under Art. 2044 of the Civil Code and as held by this Court in Chung Fu Industries (Phils.), Inc.15

In the meantime, PGSMC filed a Motion for Inspection of Things16 to determine whether there was indeed alteration of the quantity and lowering of quality of the machineries and equipment, and whether these were properly installed. KOGIES opposed the motion positing that the queries and issues raised in the motion for inspection fell under the coverage of the arbitration clause in their contract.

RULING:

b. DECLARING AS NULL AND VOID THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN ARTICLE 15 OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES FOR BEING "CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY" AND FOR OUSTING THE COURTS OF JURISDICTION;

The petition is partly meritorious.

The Core Issue: Article 15 of the Contract

We now go to the core issue of the validity of Art. 15 of the Contract, the arbitration clause. It provides:

17

Article 15. Arbitration.—All disputes, controversies, or differences which may arise between the parties, out of or in relation to or in connection with this Contract or for the breach thereof, shall finally be settled by arbitration in Seoul, Korea in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. The award rendered by the arbitration(s) shall be final and binding upon both parties concerned. (Emphasis supplied.)

Petitioner claims the RTC and the CA erred in ruling that the arbitration clause is null and void.

Petitioner is correct.

Established in this jurisdiction is the rule that the law of the place where the contract is made governs. Lex loci contractus. 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." (Emphasis supplied.)

Arts. 2038,31 2039,32 and 204033 abovecited refer to instances where a compromise or an arbitral award, as applied to Art. 2044 pursuant to Art. 2043,34 may be voided, rescinded, or annulled, but these would not denigrate the finality of the arbitral award.

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. In Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd.,35 we held that submission to arbitration is a contract and that a clause in a contract providing that all matters in dispute between the parties shall be referred to arbitration is a contract.36 Again in Del Monte Corporation-USA v. Court of Appeals, we likewise ruled that "[t]he provision to submit to arbitration any dispute arising therefrom and the relationship of the parties is part of that contract and is itself a contract."37

Arbitration clause not contrary to public policy

The arbitration clause which stipulates that the arbitration must be done in Seoul, Korea in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the KCAB, and that the arbitral award is final and binding, is not contrary to public policy. This Court has sanctioned the validity of arbitration clauses in a catena of cases. In the 1957 case of Eastboard Navigation Ltd. v. Juan Ysmael and Co., Inc.,38 this Court had occasion to rule that an arbitration clause to resolve differences and breaches of mutually agreed contractual terms is valid. In BF Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we held that "[i]n this jurisdiction, arbitration has been held valid and constitutional. Even before the approval on June 19, 1953 of Republic Act No. 876, this Court has countenanced the settlement of disputes through arbitration. Republic Act No. 876 was adopted to supplement the New Civil Code’s provisions on arbitration."39 And in LM Power Engineering Corporation v. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups, Inc., we declared that:

Being an inexpensive, speedy and amicable method of settling disputes, arbitration––along with mediation, conciliation and negotiation––is encouraged by the Supreme Court. Aside from unclogging judicial dockets, arbitration also hastens the resolution of disputes, especially of the commercial kind. It is thus regarded as the "wave of the future" in international civil and commercial disputes. Brushing aside a contractual agreement calling for arbitration between the parties would be a step backward.

Consistent with the above-mentioned policy of encouraging alternative dispute resolution methods, courts should liberally construe arbitration clauses. Provided such clause is susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute, an order to arbitrate should be granted. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of arbitration.40

Having said that the instant arbitration clause is not against public policy, we come to the question on what governs an arbitration clause specifying that in case of any dispute arising from the contract, an arbitral panel will be constituted in a foreign country and the arbitration rules of the foreign country would govern and its award shall be final and binding.

The losing party who appeals from the judgment of the court confirming an arbitral award shall be required by the appellate court to post a 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.

Thereafter, the CA decision may further be appealed or reviewed before this Court through a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

PGSMC has remedies to protect its interests

Thus, based on the foregoing features of RA 9285, PGSMC must submit to the foreign arbitration as it bound itself through the subject contract. While it may have misgivings on the foreign arbitration done in Korea by the KCAB, it has available remedies under RA 9285. Its interests are duly protected by the law which requires that the arbitral award that may be rendered by KCAB must be confirmed here by the RTC before it can be enforced.

With our disquisition above, petitioner is correct in its contention that an arbitration clause, stipulating that the arbitral award is final and binding, does not oust our courts of jurisdiction as the international arbitral award, the award of which is not absolute and without exceptions, is still judicially reviewable under certain conditions provided for by the UNCITRAL Model Law on ICA as applied and incorporated in RA 9285.

Finally, it must be noted that there is nothing in the subject Contract which provides that the parties may dispense with the arbitration clause.

18

Unilateral rescission improper and illegal

Having ruled that the arbitration clause of the subject contract is valid and binding on the parties, and not contrary to public policy; consequently, being bound to the contract of arbitration, a party may not unilaterally rescind or terminate the contract for whatever cause without first resorting to arbitration.

What this Court held in University of the Philippines v. De Los Angeles47 and reiterated in succeeding cases,48 that the act of treating a contract as rescinded on account of infractions by the other contracting party is valid albeit provisional as it can be judicially assailed, is not applicable to the instant case on account of a valid stipulation on arbitration. Where an arbitration clause in a contract is availing, neither of the parties can unilaterally treat the contract as rescinded since whatever infractions or breaches by a party or differences arising from the contract must be brought first and resolved by arbitration, and not through an extrajudicial rescission or judicial action.

The issues arising from the contract between PGSMC and KOGIES on whether the equipment and machineries delivered and installed were properly installed and operational in the plant in Carmona, Cavite; the ownership of equipment and payment of the contract price; and whether there was substantial compliance by KOGIES in the production of the samples, given the alleged fact that PGSMC could not supply the raw materials required to produce the sample LPG cylinders, are matters proper for arbitration. Indeed, we note that on July 1, 1998, KOGIES instituted an Application for Arbitration before the KCAB in Seoul, Korea pursuant to Art. 15 of the Contract as amended. Thus, it is incumbent upon PGSMC to abide by its commitment to arbitrate.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 120319 October 6, 1995

LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK, petitioner, vs.ASSOCIATION OF LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK EMPLOYEES and ATTY. ESTER S. GARCIA in her capacity as VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR, respondents.

ROMERO, J.:

FACTS:

From a submission agreement of the Luzon Development Bank (LDB) and the Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees (ALDBE) arose an arbitration case to resolve the following issue:

Whether or not the company has violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision and the Memorandum of Agreement dated April 1994, on promotion.

On May 24, 1995, without LDB's Position Paper, the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding is hereby made that the Bank has not adhered to the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision nor the Memorandum of Agreement on promotion.

Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator and to prohibit her from enforcing the same.

RULING:

In labor law context, arbitration is the reference of a labor dispute to an impartial third person for determination on the basis of evidence and arguments presented by such parties who have bound themselves to accept the decision of the arbitrator as final and binding.

Arbitration may be classified, on the basis of the obligation on which it is based, as either compulsory or voluntary.

19

Compulsory arbitration is a system whereby the parties to a dispute are compelled by the government to forego their right to strike and are compelled to accept the resolution of their dispute through arbitration by a third party. 1 The essence of arbitration remains since a resolution of a dispute is arrived at by resort to a disinterested third party whose decision is final and binding on the parties, but in compulsory arbitration, such a third party is normally appointed by the government.

Under voluntary arbitration, on the other hand, referral of a dispute by the parties is made, pursuant to a voluntary arbitration clause in their collective agreement, to an impartial third person for a final and binding resolution. 2 Ideally, arbitration awards are supposed to be complied with by both parties without delay, such that once an award has been rendered by an arbitrator, nothing is left to be done by both parties but to comply with the same. After all, they are presumed to have freely chosen arbitration as the mode of settlement for that particular dispute. Pursuant thereto, they have chosen a mutually acceptable arbitrator who shall hear and decide their case. Above all, they have mutually agreed to de bound by said arbitrator's decision.

In the Philippine context, the parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) are required to include therein provisions for a machinery for the resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA or company personnel policies. 3 For this purpose, parties to a CBA shall name and designate therein a voluntary arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators, or include a procedure for their selection, preferably from those accredited by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). Article 261 of the Labor Code accordingly provides for exclusive original jurisdiction of such voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators over (1) the interpretation or implementation of the CBA and (2) the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. Article 262 authorizes them, but only upon agreement of the parties, to exercise jurisdiction over other labor disputes.

On the other hand, a labor arbiter under Article 217 of the Labor Code has jurisdiction over the following enumerated cases:

. . . (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:

1. Unfair labor practice cases;

2. Termination disputes;

3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;

4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations;

5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts;

6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.

xxx xxx xxx

It will thus be noted that the jurisdiction conferred by law on a voluntary arbitrator or a panel of such arbitrators is quite limited compared to the original jurisdiction of the labor arbiter and the appellate jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for that matter. 4 The state of our present law relating to voluntary arbitration provides that "(t)he award or decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator . . . shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties," 5 while the "(d)ecision, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders." 6 Hence, while there is an express mode of appeal from the decision of a labor arbiter, Republic Act No. 6715 is silent with respect to an appeal from the decision of a voluntary arbitrator.

Yet, past practice shows that a decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is, more often than not, elevated to the Supreme Court itself on a petition for certiorari, 7 in effect equating the voluntary arbitrator with the NLRC or the Court of Appeals. In the view of the Court, this is illogical and imposes an unnecessary burden upon it.

Assuming arguendo that the voluntary arbitrator or the panel of voluntary arbitrators may not strictly be considered as a quasi-judicial agency, board or commission, still both he and the panel are comprehended within the concept of a "quasi-judicial instrumentality." It may even be stated that it was to meet the very situation presented by the quasi-judicial functions of the voluntary arbitrators here, as well as the subsequent arbitrator/arbitral tribunal operating under the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, 11 that the broader term "instrumentalities" was purposely included in the above-quoted provision.

An "instrumentality" is anything used as a means or agency. 12 Thus, the terms governmental "agency" or "instrumentality" are synonymous in the sense that either of them is a means by which a government acts, or by which a certain government act or function is performed. 13 The word "instrumentality," with respect to a state, contemplates an authority to which the state delegates governmental power for the performance of a state function. 14 An individual person, like an administrator or executor, is a judicial instrumentality in the settling of an estate, 15 in the same manner that

20

a sub-agent appointed by a bankruptcy court is an instrumentality of the court, 16 and a trustee in bankruptcy of a defunct corporation is an instrumentality of the state. 17

The voluntary arbitrator no less performs a state function pursuant to a governmental power delegated to him under the provisions therefor in the Labor Code and he falls, therefore, within the contemplation of the term "instrumentality" in the aforequoted Sec. 9 of B.P. 129. The fact that his functions and powers are provided for in the Labor Code does not place him within the exceptions to said Sec. 9 since he is a quasi-judicial instrumentality as contemplated therein. It will be noted that, although the Employees Compensation Commission is also provided for in the Labor Code, Circular No. 1-91, which is the forerunner of the present Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, laid down the procedure for the appealability of its decisions to the Court of Appeals under the foregoing rationalization, and this was later adopted by Republic Act No. 7902 in amending Sec. 9 of B.P. 129.

A fortiori, the decision or award of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators should likewise be appealable to the Court of Appeals, in line with the procedure outlined in Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, just like those of the quasi-judicial agencies, boards and commissions enumerated therein.

This would be in furtherance of, and consistent with, the original purpose of Circular No. 1-91 to provide a uniform procedure for the appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial entities 18 not expressly excepted from the coverage of Sec. 9 of B.P. 129 by either the Constitution or another statute. Nor will it run counter to the legislative intendment that decisions of the NLRC be reviewable directly by the Supreme Court since, precisely, the cases within the adjudicative competence of the voluntary arbitrator are excluded from the jurisdiction of the NLRC or the labor arbiter.

In the same vein, it is worth mentioning that under Section 22 of Republic Act No. 876, also known as the Arbitration Law, arbitration is deemed a special proceeding of which the court specified in the contract or submission, or if none be specified, the Regional Trial Court for the province or city in which one of the parties resides or is doing business, or in which the arbitration is held, shall have jurisdiction. A party to the controversy may, at any time within one (1) month after an award is made, apply to the court having jurisdiction for an order confirming the award and the court must grant such order unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected. 19

In effect, this equates the award or decision of the voluntary arbitrator with that of the regional trial court. Consequently, in a petition for certiorari from that award or decision, the Court of Appeals must be deemed to have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court. As a matter of policy, this Court shall henceforth remand to the Court of Appeals petitions of this nature for proper disposition.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to REFER this case to the Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 102881 December 7, 1992

TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. FERNANDO V. GOROSPE, JR. and SUN VALLEY MANUFACTURING & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: FACTS:

This case involves a boundary dispute between Toyota Motor Phil. Corporation (Toyota) and Sun Valley Manufacturing and Development Corporation (Sun Valley).

Both Toyota and Sun Valley are the registered owners of two (2) adjoining parcels of land situated in La Huerta, Parañaque, Metro Manila which they purchased from the Asset Privatization Trust (APT).

The properties in question formerly belonged to Delta Motors Corporation (DMC). They were foreclosed by the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and later transferred to the national government through the APT for disposition.

APT then proceeded to classify the DMC properties according to the existing improvements, i.e., buildings, driveways, parking areas, perimeter fence, walls and gates and the land on which the improvements stood. The entire DMC property is called GC III-Delta Motors Corporation, divided

21

into Delta I, Delta II, and Delta III. Further subdivisions for the separate catalogues were made for each division e.g. Delta I into Lots 1, 2 and 3. After this classification, APT parcelled out and catalogued the properties for bidding and sale.

Part of the duly parcelled Delta I property (Lot 2) was sold to Toyota through public bidding on May 12, 1988 for the amount of P95,385,000.00. After its purchase, Toyota constructed a concrete hollow block (CHB) perimeter fence around its alleged property.

On October 5, 1990, another part of the parcelled Delta I (Lot 1) covering an area of 55,236 square meters was purchased by Sun Valley from APT for the bid price of P124,349,767.00. Relying upon the title description of its property and the surveys it had commissioned, Sun Valley claimed that Toyota's perimeter fence overlaps Sun Valley's property along corners 11 to 15 by 322 square meters and corners 19 to 1 by 401 square meters for a total of 723 square meters. (Rollo, p. 841)

Negotiations between the two (2) corporations for a possible settlement of the dispute bogged down. Court battles ensued, grounded on purely procedural issues. In pursuing the resolution of the dispute, both Toyota and Sun Valley opted to file separate actions. Much of the complications that arose and are now before us can be traced to the two separate cases pursued by both parties. There are other cases arising from the same dispute but which are not before us.

On October 30, 1991, APT filed its answer with affirmative defenses alleging that the complaint must be dismissed on the ground that Toyota and APT should first have resorted to arbitration as provided in Toyota's deed of sale with APT. On December 4, 1991, Toyota filed a motion alleging that Sun Valley's long threatened destruction and removal of Toyota's walls and structures were actually being implemented to which Judge Tensuan issued another TRO enjoining acts of destruction and removal of the perimeter walls and structures on the contested area.

Judge Tensuan's jurisdiction to act considering the defense of prematurity of action for failure to arbitrate the validity of the TRO issued on December 4, 1991 and the order granting injunctive reliefs were challenged in a petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals and docketed as CA-G.R. No. 26813, assigned to the Second (2nd) Division.

RULING:

Attention must first be brought to the fact that the contract of sale executed between APT and Toyota provides an arbitration clause which states that:5. In case of disagreement or conflict arising out of this Contract, the parties hereby undertake to submit the matter for determination by a committee of experts, acting as arbitrators, the composition of which shall be as follows:a) One member to be appointed by the VENDOR;b) One member to be appointed by the VENDEE;c) One member, who shall be a lawyer, to be appointed by both of the aforesaid parties;The members of the Arbitration Committee shall be appointed not later than three (3) working days from receipt of a written notice from either or both parties. The Arbitration Committee shall convene not later than three (3) weeks after all its members have been appointed and proceed with the arbitration of the dispute within three (3) calendar months counted therefrom. By written mutual agreement by the parties hereto, such time limit for the arbitration may be extended for another calendar month. The decision of the Arbitration Committee by majority vote of at least two (2) members shall be final and binding upon both the VENDOR and the VENDEE; (Rollo, pp. 816-817)

The contention that the arbitration clause has become disfunctional because of the presence of third parties is untenable.

Toyota filed an action for reformation of its contract with APT, the purpose of which is to look into the real intentions/agreement of the parties to the contract and to determine if there was really a mistake in the designation of the boundaries of the property as alleged by Toyota. Such questions can only be answered by the parties to the contract themselves. This is a controversy which clearly arose from the contract entered into by APT and Toyota. Inasmuch as this concerns more importantly the parties APT and Toyota themselves, the arbitration committee is therefore the proper and convenient forum to settle the matter as clearly provided in the deed of sale.

Having been apprised of the presence of the arbitration clause in the motion to dismiss filed by APT, Judge Tensuan should have at least suspended the proceedings and directed the parties to settle their dispute by arbitration (Bengson v. Chan, 78 SCRA 113 [1977], Sec. 7, RA 876). Judge Tensuan should have not taken cognizance of the case.

In view of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for failure to show reversible error, much less grave abuse of discretion, on the part of the respondent court.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 135362 December 13, 1999

HEIRS OF AUGUSTO L. SALAS, JR., namely: TERESITA D. SALAS for herself and as legal guardian of the minor FABRICE CYRILL D. SALAS, MA. CRISTINA S. LESACA, and KARINA TERESA D. SALAS, petitioners,

22

vs.LAPERAL REALTY CORPORATION, ROCKWAY REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, SOUTH RIDGE VILLAGE, INC., MAHARAMI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Spouses THELMA D. ABRAJANO and GREGORIO ABRAJANO, OSCAR DACILLO, Spouses VIRGINIA D. LAVA and RODEL LAVA, EDUARDO A. VACUNA, FLORANTE DE LA CRUZ, JESUS VICENTE B. CAPELLAN, and the REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR LIPA CITY, respondents.

DE LEON, JR., J.:

FACTS:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Order 1 of Branch 85 of the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City 2 dismissing petitioners' complaint 3 for rescission of several sale transactions involving land owned by Augusto L. Salas, Jr., their predecessor-in-interest, on the ground that they failed to first resort to arbitration.

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 4 (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) with respondent Laperal Realty Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Laperal Realty) 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.

On August 6, 1996, 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. 5

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. on February 22, 1990; to respondent spouses Abrajano and Lava and Oscar Dacillo on June 27, 1991; and to respondents Eduardo Vacuna, Florante de la Cruz and Jesus Vicente Capalan on June 4, 1996 (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 7 on the ground that petitioners failed to submit their grievance to arbitration as required under Article VI of the Agreement which provides:

Art. VI. ARBITRATION.

All cases of dispute between CONTRACTOR and OWNER'S representative shall be referred to the committee represented by:

a. One representative of the OWNER;

b. One representative of the CONTRACTOR;

c. One representative acceptable to both OWNER and CONTRACTOR. 8

On May 5, 1998, respondent spouses Abrajano and Lava and respondent Dacillo filed a Joint Answer with Counterclaim and Crossclaim 9 praying for dismissal of petitioners' Complaint for the same reason.

On August 9, 1998, the trial court issued the herein assailed Order dismissing petitioners' Complaint for non-compliance with the foregoing arbitration clause.

Hence this petition.

RULING:

Nonetheless, we grant the petition.

A submission to arbitration is a contract. 16 As such, the Agreement, containing the stipulation on arbitration, binds the parties thereto, as well as their assigns and heirs. 17 But only they. Petitioners, as heirs of Salas, Jr., and respondent Laperal Realty are certainly bound by the Agreement. If respondent Laperal Realty had assigned its rights under the Agreement to a third party, making the former, the assignor, and the latter, the assignee, such assignee would also be bound by the arbitration provision since assignment involves such transfer of rights as to vest in the assignee the power to enforce them to the same extent as the assignor could have enforced them against the debtor 18 or in this case, against the heirs of the

23

original party to the Agreement. However, respondents Rockway Real Estate Corporation, South Ridge Village, Inc., Maharami Development Corporation, spouses Abrajano, spouses Lava, Oscar Dacillo, Eduardo Vacuna, Florante de la Cruz and Jesus Vicente Capellan are not assignees of the rights of respondent Laperal Realty under the Agreement to develop Salas, Jr.'s land and sell the same. They are, rather, buyers of the land that respondent Laperal Realty was given the authority to develop and sell under the Agreement. As such, they are not "assigns" contemplated in Art. 1311 of the New Civil Code which provides that "contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs".

Petitioners claim that they suffered lesion of more than one-fourth (1/4) of the value of Salas, Jr.'s land when respondent Laperal Realty subdivided it and sold portions thereof to respondent lot buyers. Thus, they instituted action 19 against both respondent Laperal Realty and respondent lot buyers for rescission of the sale transactions and reconveyance to them of the subdivided lots. They argue that rescission, being their cause of action, falls under the exception clause in Sec. 2 of Republic Act No. 876 which provides that "such submission [to] or contract [of arbitration] shall be valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist at law for the revocation of any contract".

The petitioners' contention is without merit. For while rescission, as a general rule, is an arbitrable issue, 20 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 result in multiplicity of suits, duplicitous procedure and unnecessary delay. On the other hand, it would be in the interest of justice if the trial court hears the complaint against all herein respondents and adjudicates petitioners' rights as against theirs in a single and complete proceeding.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The Order dated August 19, 1998 of Branch 85 of the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. Said court is hereby ordered to proceed with the hearing of Civil Case No. 98-0047.

Costs against private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 136154 February 7, 2001

DEL MONTE CORPORATION-USA, PAUL E. DERBY, JR., DANIEL COLLINS and LUIS HIDALGO, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE BIENVENIDO L. REYES in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 74, Malabon, Metro Manila, MONTEBUENO MARKETING, INC., LIONG LIONG C. SY and SABROSA FOODS, INC., respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

FACTS:

This Petition for Review on certiorari assails the 17 July 1998 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals affirming the 11 November 1997 Order2 of the Regional Trial Court which denied petitioners' Motion to Suspend Proceedings in Civil Case No. 2637-MN. It also questions the appellate court's Resolution3 of 30 October 1998 which denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.

On 1 July 1994, in a Distributorship Agreement, petitioner Del Monte Corporation-USA (DMC-USA) appointed private respondent Montebueno Marketing, Inc. (MMI) as the sole and exclusive distributor of its Del Monte products in the Philippines for a period of five (5) years, renewable for two (2) consecutive five (5) year periods with the consent of the parties. The agreement provided, among others, for an arbitration clause which states –

12. GOVERNING LAW AND ARBITRATION4

This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and/or, if applicable, the United States of America. All disputes arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the parties' relationship, including the termination thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration in the City of San Francisco, State of California, under the Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitration panel shall consist of three members, one of whom shall be selected by DMC-USA, one of whom shall be selected by MMI, and third of whom shall be selected by the other two members and shall have relevant experience in the industry x x x x

24

In October 1994 the appointment of private respondent MMI as the sole and exclusive distributor of Del Monte products in the Philippines was published in several newspapers in the country. Immediately after its appointment, private respondent MMI appointed Sabrosa Foods, Inc. (SFI), with the approval of petitioner DMC-USA, as MMI's marketing arm to concentrate on its marketing and selling function as well as to manage its critical relationship with the trade.

On 3 October 1996 private respondents MMI, SFI and MMI's Managing Director Liong Liong C. Sy (LILY SY) filed a Complaint5 against petitioners DMC-USA, Paul E. Derby, Jr.,6 Daniel Collins7 and Luis Hidalgo,8 and Dewey Ltd.9 before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Metro Manila. Private respondents predicated their complaint on the alleged violations by petitioners of Arts. 20,10 2111 and 2312 of the Civil Code. According to private respondents, DMC-USA products continued to be brought into the country by parallel importers despite the appointment of private respondent MMI as the sole and exclusive distributor of Del Monte products thereby causing them great embarrassment and substantial damage. They alleged that the products brought into the country by these importers were aged, damaged, fake or counterfeit, so that in March 1995 they had to cause, after prior consultation with Antonio Ongpin, Market Director for Special Markets of Del Monte Philippines, Inc., the publication of a "warning to the trade" paid advertisement in leading newspapers. Petitioners DMC-USA and Paul E. Derby, Jr., apparently upset with the publication, instructed private respondent MMI to stop coordinating with Antonio Ongpin and to communicate directly instead with petitioner DMC-USA through Paul E. Derby, Jr.

On 21 October 1996 petitioners filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings13 invoking the arbitration clause in their Agreement with private respondents.1âwphi1.nêt

RULING:

Hence, this Petition for Review.

The crux of the controversy boils down to whether the dispute between the parties warrants an order compelling them to submit to arbitration.

A careful examination of the instant case shows that the arbitration clause in the Distributorship Agreement between petitioner DMC-USA and private respondent MMI is valid and the dispute between the parties is arbitrable. However, this Court must deny the petition.

The Agreement between petitioner DMC-USA and private respondent MMI is a contract. The provision to submit to arbitration any dispute arising therefrom and the relationship of the parties is part of that contract and is itself a contract. As a rule, contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties and produce effect as between them, their assigns and heirs.24 Clearly, only parties to the Agreement, i.e., petitioners DMC-USA and its Managing Director for Export Sales Paul E. Derby, Jr., and private respondents MMI and its Managing Director LILY SY are bound by the Agreement and its arbitration clause as they are the only signatories thereto. Petitioners Daniel Collins and Luis Hidalgo, and private respondent SFI, not parties to the Agreement and cannot even be considered assigns or heirs of the parties, are not bound by the Agreement and the arbitration clause therein. Consequently, referral to arbitration in the State of California pursuant to the arbitration clause and the suspension of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 2637-MN pending the return of the arbitral award could be called for25 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. This is consistent with the recent case of Heirs of Augusto L. Salas, Jr. v. Laperal Realty Corporation,26 which superseded that of Toyota Motor Philippines Corp. v. Court of Appeals.27

The object of arbitration is to allow the expeditious determination of a dispute.31 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.32

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Order of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Metro Manila, in Civil Case No. 2637-MN, which denied petitioners' Motion to Suspend Proceedings, is AFFIRMED. The Regional Trial Court concerned is directed to proceed with the hearing of Civil Case No. 2637-MN with dispatch. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 115412 November 19, 1999

HOME BANKERS SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO., INC. respondents.

BUENA, J.:

FACTS:

25

This appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to annul and set aside the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals 2 dated January 21, 1994 in CA-G.R. SP No. 29725, dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner to annul the two (2) orders issued by the Regional Trial Court of Makati 3 in Civil Case No. 92-145, the first, dated April 30, 1992, denying petitioner's motion to dismiss and the second, dated October 1, 1992 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration thereof.

The pertinent facts may be briefly stated as follows: Victor Tancuan, one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 92-145, issued Home Bankers Savings and Trust Company (HBSTC) check No. 193498 for P25,250,000.00 while Eugene Arriesgado issued Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) check Nos. 464264, 464272 and 464271 for P8,600,000.00, P8,500,000.00 and P8,100,000.00, respectively, the three checks amounting to P25,200,000.00. Tancuan and Arriesgado exchanged each other's checks and deposited them with their respective banks for collection. When FEBTC presented Tancuan's HBSTC check for clearing, HBSTC dishonored it for being "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds." On October 15, 1991, HBSTC sent Arriesgado's three (3) FEBTC checks through the Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC) to FEBTC but was returned on October 18, 1991 as "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds." HBSTC received the notice of dishonor on October 21, 1991 but refused to accept the checks and on October 22, 1991, returned them to FEBTC through the PCHC for the reason "Beyond Reglementary Period," implying that HBSTC already treated the three (3) FEBTC checks as cleared and allowed the proceeds thereof to be withdrawn. 4 FEBTC demanded reimbursement for the returned checks and inquired from HBSTC whether it had permitted any withdrawal of funds against the unfunded checks and if so, on what date. HBSTC, however, refused to make any reimbursement and to provide FEBTC with the needed information.

Thus, on December 12, 1991, FEBTC submitted the dispute for arbitration before the PCHC Arbitration Committee, 5 under the PCHC's Supplementary Rules on Regional Clearing to which FEBTC and HBSTC are bound as participants in the regional clearing operations administered by the PCHC. 6

On January 17, 1992, while the arbitration proceeding was still pending, FEBTC filed an action for sum of money and damages with preliminaryattachment 7 against HBSTC, Robert Young, Victor Tancuan and Eugene Arriesgado with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 133. A motion to dismiss was filed by HBSTC claiming that the complaint stated no cause of action and accordingly ". . . should be dismissed because it seeks to enforce an arbitral award which as yet does not exist." 8 The trial court issued an omnibus order dated April 30, 1992 denying the motion to dismiss and an order dated October 1, 1992 denying the motion for reconsideration.

RULING:

In this petition, the lone issue presented for the consideration of this Court is:

WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENT WHICH COMMENCED AN ARBITRATION PROCEEDING UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE PHILIPPINE CLEARING HOUSE CORPORATION (PCHC) MAY SUBSEQUENTLY FILE A SEPARATE CASE IN COURT OVER THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER OF ARBITRATION DESPITE THE PENDENCY OF THAT ARBITRATION, SIMPLY TO OBTAIN THE PROVISIONAL REMEDY OF ATTACHMENT AGAINST THE BANK THE ADVERSE PARTY IN THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDING. 42

We find no merit in the petition. Section 14 of Republic Act 876, otherwise known as the Arbitration Law, allows any party to the arbitration proceeding to petition the court to take measures to safeguard and/or conserve any matter which is the subject of the dispute in arbitration, thus:

Sec. 14. Subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. — Arbitrators shall have the power to require any person to attend a hearing as a witness. They shall have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents when the relevancy of the testimony and the materiality thereof has been demonstrated to the arbitrators. Arbitrators may also require the retirement of any witness during the testimony of any other witness. All of the arbitrators appointed in any controversy must attend all the hearings in that matter and hear all the allegations and proofs of the parties; but an award by the majority of them is valid unless the concurrence of all of them is expressly required in the submission or contract to arbitrate. The arbitrator or arbitrators shall have the power at any time, before rendering the award, without prejudice to the rights of any party to petition the court to take measures to safeguard and/or conserve any matter which is the subject of the dispute in arbitration. (emphasis supplied)

Petitioner's exposition of the foregoing provision deserves scant consideration. Section 14 simply grants an arbitrator the power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum at any time before rendering the award. The exercise of such power is without prejudice to the right of a party to file a petition in court to safeguard any matter which is the subject of the dispute in arbitration. In the case at bar, private respondent filed an action for a sum of money with prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. Undoubtedly, such action involved the same subject matter as that in arbitration, i.e., the sum of P25,200,000.00 which was allegedly deprived from private respondent in what is known in banking as a "kiting scheme." However, the civil action was not a simple case of a money claim since private respondent has included a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment, which is sanctioned by section 14 of the Arbitration Law.

. . . . . .. Under the rules and regulations of the Philippine Clearing House Corporation (PCHC), the mere act of participation of the parties concerned in its operations in effect amounts to a manifestation of agreement by the parties to abide by its rules and regulations. As a consequence of such participation, a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the courts over disputes and controversies which fall under the PCHC Rules and Regulations without first going through the arbitration processes laid out by the body. 47 (emphasis supplied)

At this point, we emphasize that arbitration, as an alternative method of dispute resolution, is encouraged by this Court. Aside from unclogging judicial dockets, it also hastens solutions especially of commercial disputes. 50 The Court looks with favor upon such amicable arrangement and will only interfere with great reluctance to anticipate or nullify the action of the arbitrator. 51

26

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

27