G.R. No.

169332
February 11, 2008
ABS-CBN vs. WORLD INTERACTIVE NETWORK SYSTEMS (WINS) JAPAN CO.,
LTD.
FACTS: Petitioner ABS-CBN entered into an agreement with respondent World Interactive
Network Systems (WINS). Under the agreement, respondent was granted the exclusive license to
distribute and sublicense the distribution of the television service known as "The Filipino
Channel" (TFC) in Japan.
A dispute arose when petitioner accused respondent of inserting nine episodes of WINS
WEEKLY, into the TFC programming from March to May 2002, claiming that such insertions
were unauthorized thus constituting a material breach of their agreement. As a result, petitioner
notified respondent of its intention to terminate their licensing agreement.
Thereafter, respondent filed an arbitration suit pursuant to the arbitration clause of its agreement
with petitioner and contended that the airing of WINS WEEKLY was made with petitioner's prior
approval. It also alleged that petitioner only threatened to terminate their agreement because it
wanted to renegotiate the terms thereof to allow it to demand higher fees. Respondent also
prayed for damages for petitioner's alleged grant of an exclusive distribution license to another
entity, NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation).
The parties appointed a sole arbitrator in the person of Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar and the latter
reached a decision in favor of respondent.
Petitioner filed in the CA a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court or, in the
alternative, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the same Rules, with application for
temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction.
The CA rendered the assailed decision dismissing ABS-CBNs petition for lack of jurisdiction. It
ruled that it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over questions relating to arbitration. It held that
the only instance it can exercise jurisdiction over an arbitral award is an appeal from the trial
court's decision confirming, vacating or modifying the arbitral award. It further stated that a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is proper in arbitration cases only if the
courts refuse or neglect to inquire into the facts of an arbitrator's award.
ISSUE: Whether or not an aggrieved party in a voluntary arbitration dispute may avail of,
directly in the CA, a petition for review under Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court, instead of filing a petition to vacate the award in the.
RULING: The CAs decision is sound. A petition for review under Rule 43 or a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 directly in the CA is NOT the proper remedy.
RA 876 itself mandates that it is the Court of First Instance, now the RTC, which has jurisdiction
over questions relating to arbitration, such as a petition to vacate an arbitral award.

As RA 876 did not expressly provide that errors of fact and/or law and grave abuse of discretion,
which is the proper grounds for a petition for review under Rule 43 and a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65, This means that such ground is not acceptable for maintaining a petition to
vacate an arbitral award in the RTC. Thus, it follows that a party may not avail of the remedies
under Rule 43 and Rule 65 on the grounds of errors of fact and/or law or grave abuse of
discretion to overturn an arbitral award.