Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Precision has failed to show any serious errors of law amounting to grave abuse
of discretion resulting in lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Arbitral Tribunal, in
either the methods employed or the results reached by the Arbitral Tribunal, in
disposing of the detailed claims of the respective parties.
that there is no cause of action and because it seeks to enforce an arbitral award which
as yet does not exist. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and the motion for
reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with respondent CA to which
it had dismissed.
Issue:
Whether or not private respondent which commenced an arbitration proceeding under
the auspices of the PCHC may subsequently file a separate case in court over the same
subject matter despite the pendency of that arbitration, simply to obtain the provisional
remedy of attachment against the adverse party in the arbitration proceeding.
Ruling:
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.
Petitioners 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.
Simply put, participants in the regional clearing operations of the Philippine Clearing
House Corporation cannot bypass the arbitration process laid out by the body and seek
relief directly from the courts. In the case at bar, undeniably, private respondent has
initiated arbitration proceedings as required by the PCHC rules and regulations, and
pending arbitration has sought relief from the trial court for measures to safeguard
and/or conserve the subject of the dispute under arbitration, as sanctioned by section
14 of the Arbitration Law, and otherwise not shown to be contrary to the PCHC rules
and regulations.
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. 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. Wherefore, premises considered, the petition is hereby
dismissed and the decision of the court a quo is affirmed.
The
1.
YES. SC sides with Respondent. The instant case involves
technical discrepancies that are better left to an arbitral body
that has expertise in those areas.
2.
NO. SC is not persuaded with Petitioners contention. Section
1 of Article III of the NEW Rules of Procedure Governing
Construction Arbitration has dispensed with the requirement
to submit a request for arbitration. Recourse to the CIAC may
now be availed of whenever a contract contains a clause for
the submission of a future controversy to arbitration.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1.
In the instant case, the Subcontract has the following arbitral
clause:
6. The Parties hereto agree that any dispute or conflict as
regards to interpretation and implementation of this
Agreement which cannot be settled between [respondent]
and [petitioner] amicably shall be settled by means of
arbitration x x x.
Clearly, the resolution of the dispute between the parties
herein requires a referral to the provisions of their
Agreement. Within the scope of the arbitration clause are
discrepancies as to the amount of advances and billable
accomplishments, the application of the provision on
termination, and the consequent set-off of expenses.
A review of the factual allegations of the parties reveals that
they differ on the following questions, the resolutions of
which lies in the interpretation of the provisions of the
Subcontract Agreement:
1. Did a take-over/termination occur?
2.
3.
May the expenses incurred by Respondent in the takeover be set off against the amounts it owed Petitioner?
How
much
were
the
advances
and
billable
accomplishments?