Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SECOND DIVISION
MAGELLAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION
and
MAGELLAN
CAPITAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
-versus-
In a letter dated October 20, 1995, MCHC communicated its nonacceptance of respondent Zosas 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]
chanroblespublishingcompany
On October 21, 1996, the trial court issued its pre-trial order declaring
the pre-trial stage terminated and setting the case for hearing. The
order states:
ISSUES:
The Court will only resolve one issue in so far as this case is
concerned, to wit:
chanroblespublishingcompany
SO ORDERED.[22]
Petitioners filed a motions for partial reconsideration of the CA
decision praying (1) for the dismissal of the case in the trial court, on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and (2) that the parties be directed
to submit their dispute to arbitration in accordance with the
Employment Agreement dated March 1994. The CA, in a resolution
promulgated on June 20, 1997, denied the motion for partial
reconsideration for lack of merit.
chanroblespublishingcompany
In compliance with the CA decision, the trial court, on July 18, 1997,
rendered a decision declaring the arbitration clause in the
Employment Agreement partially void and of no effect. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
chanroblespublishingcompany
In view of the trial courts decision, petitioners filed this petition for
review on certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assigning
the following errors for the Courts resolution:
I. The trial court gravely erred when it ruled that the
arbitration clause under the employment agreement is
partially void and of no effect, considering that:
chanroblespublishingcompany
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
This is to certify that on September 8, 1997 a
decision/resolution rendered in the above-entitled case was
filed in this Office, the dispositive part of which reads as
follows:
chanroblespublishingcompany
and that the same has, on September 17, 1997, become final and
executory and is hereby recorded in the Book of Entries of
Judgments.[28]
chanroblespublishingcompany
Equally unavailing for the petitioners is the review by this Court, via
the instant petition, of the factual findings made by the trial court that
the composition of the panel of arbitrators would, in all probability,
work injustice to respondent Zosa. We have repeatedly stressed that
the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing
only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained
of are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or the assailed
judgment is based on misapprehension of facts.[29]
chanroblespublishingcompany
x x x[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.
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
[1]
[2]
chanroblespublishingcompany
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
chanroblespublishingcompany
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
V.
RESPONDENT COURT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT
REFUSED TO DISMISS THE ACTION BELOW FOR IMPROPER
VENUE.
VI.
RESPONDENT COURT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT
FAILED TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF
THE REQUISITE CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING.
Court of Appeals Decision, pp. 5-6; Rollo, pp. 316-317.
Ibid., pp. 329-330.
Annex A, RTC Decision, pp. 72-73.
Rollo, pp. 571-573.
Now Associate Justice of this Court.
Court of Appeals Decision, p. 16; Rollo, p. 321.
Loevillo C. Agustin vs. Court of Appeals and Filinvest Finance Corporation,
271 SCRA 457 [1997].
Rollo, p. 350.
Congregation of the Religious of the Virgin Mary vs. CA, 291 SCRA 385
[1998].
Rollo, pp. 71-72.
Casolita, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 257 [1997]; Manalili vs. Court of
Appeals, 280 SCRA 400 [1997].
G.R. No. 121071, December 11, 1998.
chanroblespublishingcompany
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
[30]
[31]
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
[32]
chanroblespublishingcompany