Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2



Cargill v San
Shinryo v RRN

Insular Saving
v Far East Bank

Provision to submit to arbitration any dispute arising between the parties is in itself a contract. The
Arbitration agreement is to be treated as separate agreement and does not automatically
terminate when the contract of which it is a part comes to an end. (Separability Doctrine)
Mathematical computations, the propriety of arbitral awards, claims for other costs and
abandonment are factual questions. Since the discussions of the CIAC and the CA in their respective
Decisions show that its factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, there is no reason
why this Court should not accord finality to said findings. Petitioner's request for a recalibration of
its evidence, which had been thoroughly studied by both the CIAC and the CA would result in
negating the objective of Executive Order No. 1008, which created an arbitration body to ensure
the prompt and efficient settlement of disputes in the construction industry.
It may petition the proper RTC to issue an order vacating the award on the grounds provided for
under Section 24 of the Arbitration Law.
Petitioner likewise has the option to file a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court
with the Court of Appeals on questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
Lastly, petitioner may file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the ground
that the Arbitrator Committee acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Since this case involves acts or omissions of a
quasi-judicial agency, the petition should be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals
Alternative dispute resolution methods or ADRs like arbitration, mediation, negotiation and
conciliation are encouraged by the Supreme Court. By enabling parties to resolve their disputes
amicably, they provide solutions that are less time-consuming, less tedious, less confrontational,
and more productive of goodwill and lasting relationships.

Fiesta World
Mall v

Uniwide v
Titan Ikeda

Philippines v.
Metro Rail

arbitration proceedings are mainly governed by the Arbitration Law and suppletorily by the Rules of
That such arbitration agreement is the law between the parties. Since that agreement is binding
between them, they are expected to abide by it in good faith.And because it covers the dispute
between them in the present case, either of them may compel the other to arbitrate.
In this connection, since respondent has already filed a complaint with the trial court without prior
recourse to arbitration, the proper procedure to enable an arbitration panel to resolve the parties
dispute pursuant to their Contract is for the trial court to stay the proceedings.After the arbitration
proceeding has been pursued and completed, then the trial court may confirm the award made by
the arbitration panel.
The Court will not review the factual findings of an arbitral tribunal upon the artful allegation that
such body had "misapprehended facts" and will not pass upon issues which are, at bottom, issues of
fact, no matter how cleverly disguised they might be as "legal questions." The parties here had
recourse to arbitration and chose the arbitrators themselves; they must have had confidence in
such arbitrators. The Court will not, therefore, permit the parties to relitigate before it the issues of
facts previously presented and argued before the Arbitral Tribunal, save only where a clear showing
is made that, in reaching its factual conclusions, the Arbitral Tribunal committed an error so
egregious and hurtful to one party as to constitute a grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack or
loss of jurisdiction
EO 1008 itself excludes from the coverage of the law only those disputes arising from employeremployee relationships which are covered by the Labor Code, conveying an intention to encompass
a broad range of arbitrable issues within the jurisdiction of the CIAC.
Drei A.


In this case, the parties submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the CIAC by virtue of the
arbitration clause in the GCC. No novation. Thus, must submit to CIAC.
It may even be added that issues regarding the rescission or termination of a construction contract
are themselves considered arbitrable issues under Sec. 2, Art. IV of the Rules of Procedure
Governing Construction Arbitration

Technologies v

The jurisdiction of the CIAC is not over the contract but the disputes which arose therefrom, or are
connected thereto, whether such disputes arose before or after the completion of the contract, or
after the abandonment or breach thereof.
The award rendered by the arbitration(s) shall be final and binding upon both parties concerned
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.
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


Adamson Corp
vs. CA

In case a foreign arbitral body is chosen by the parties, the arbitration rules of our domestic
arbitration bodies would not be applied. We have even incorporated the Model Law in Republic Act
No. (RA) 9285, otherwise known as the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 . While RA 9285
was passed only in 2004, it nonetheless applies in the instant case since it is a procedural law which
has a retroactive effect
Sec. 24. Grounds for vacating award:
(a) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; or
(b) That there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators or any of them; or
(c) That the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing upon
sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy;
that one or more of the arbitrators was disqualified to act as such under section nine hereof, and
willfully refrained from disclosing such disqualifications or of any other misbehavior by which the
rights of any party have been materially prejudiced; or
(d) That the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them, that a mutual, final
and definite award upon the subject matter submitted to them was not made.
In cases not falling under any of the aforementioned grounds to vacate an award, the Court has
already made several pronouncements that a petition for review under Rule 43 or a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed of in the CA. Which one would depend on the grounds
relied upon by petitioner. In several cases has the Court pronounced that the proper remedy from
the adverse decision of a voluntary arbitrator, if errors of fact and/or law are raised, is a petition for
review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioners failed to prove their allegation of partiality on the part of the arbitrators. Proofs other
than mere inferences are needed to establish evident partiality. That they were disadvantaged by
the decision of the Arbitration Committee does not prove evident partiality.
There are two acts which may vest the CIAC with jurisdiction over a construction dispute. One is the
presence of an arbitration clause in a construction contract, and the other is the agreement by the
parties to submit the dispute to the CIAC.
Drei A.