Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

G.R. No.

169332

February 11, 2008

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, petitioner,


vs.
WORLD INTERACTIVE NETWORK SYSTEMS (WINS) JAPAN CO., LTD., respondent.

Facts:
On September 27, 1999, petitioner ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation entered into a licensing agreement with respondent World
Interactive Network Systems (WINS) Japan Co., Ltd., a foreign corporation licensed under the laws of Japan. 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. By virtue thereof, petitioner undertook to transmit the TFC programming signals to respondent which
the latter received through its decoders and distributed to its subscribers.
A dispute arose between the parties when petitioner accused respondent of inserting nine episodes of WINS WEEKLY, a weekly 35minute community news program for Filipinos in Japan, into the TFC programming from March to May 2002. 3 Petitioner claimed that
these were "unauthorized insertions" constituting a material breach of their agreement. Consequently, on May 9, 2002, 4 petitioner
notified respondent of its intention to terminate the agreement effective June 10, 2002.
Thereafter, respondent filed an arbitration suit pursuant to the arbitration clause of its agreement with petitioner. It 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). 5
The parties appointed Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar to act as sole arbitrator. They stipulated their terms of reference (TOR)
The arbitrator found in favor of respondent. He then allowed respondent to recover temperate damages, attorney's fees and one-half of
the amount it paid as arbitrator's fee.
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. It was docketed as CA-G.R. SP
No. 81940. It alleged serious errors of fact and law and/or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of the arbitrator.

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

Held:
No. An aggrieved party in a voluntary arbitration dispute may not 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
Proper issues that may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 43 pertain to errors of fact, law or mixed questions of fact and
law.21 While a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should only limit itself to errors of jurisdiction, that is, grave abuse of discretion
amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.22It cannot be availed of where appeal is the proper remedy or as a substitute for a lapsed
appeal.23
In the case at bar, the remedy petitioner availed of, entitled "alternative petition for review under Rule 43 or petition for certiorari under
Rule 65," was wrong. These two remedies, appeal and certiorari, are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. 20 It is the
duty of every lawyer should be familiar with the distinctions between the two remedies for it is not the duty of the courts to determine
under which rule the petition should fall.24 Petitioner's ploy was fatal to its cause. An appeal taken either to this Court or the CA by the
wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed.25
Thus, the alternative petition filed in the CA, being an inappropriate mode of appeal, should have been dismissed outright by the CA.

G.R. No. 132848-49

June 26, 2001

PHILROCK, INC., petitioner,


vs.
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION COMMISSION and Spouses VICENTE and NELIA
CID,respondents.

Facts: "On September 14, 1992, the Cid spouses, filed a Complaint for damages against Philrock and
seven of its officers and engineers with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 82.
"On December 7, 1993, the initial trial date, the trial court issued an Order dismissing the case and
referring the same to the CIAC because the Cid spouses and Philrock had filed an Agreement to
Arbitrate with the CIAC.
"Thereafter, preliminary conferences were held among the parties and their appointed arbitrators. At
these conferences, disagreements arose as to whether moral and exemplary damages and tort
should be included as an issue along with breach of contract, and whether the seven officers and
engineers of Philrock who are not parties to the Agreement to Arbitrate should be included in the
arbitration proceedings. No common ground could be reached by the parties, hence, on April 2, 1994,
both the Cid spouses and Philrock requested that the case be remanded to the trial court.

"The Cid spouses then filed with said Branch of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a Motion To
Set Case for Hearing which motion was opposed by Philrock.
"On June 13, 1995, the trial court declared that it no longer had jurisdiction over the case and
ordered the records of the case to be remanded anew to the CIAC for arbitral proceedings.
"On September 12, 1995, [P]etitioner Philrock filed its Motion to Dismiss, alleging therein that the
CIAC had lost jurisdiction to hear the arbitration case due to the parties' withdrawal of their consent
to arbitrate. The motion was denied by x x x CIAC per Order dated September 22, 1995. On
November 8, public respondent ordered the parties to appear before it on November 28, 1995 for the
continuation of the arbitral proceedings, and on February 7, 1996, public respondent directed
[P]etitioner Philrock to set two hearing dates in the month of February to present its evidence and to
pay all fees assessed by it, otherwise x x x Philrock would be deemed to have waived its right to
present evidence.
"Hence, petitioner instituted the petition for certiorari but while said petition was pending, the CIAC
rendered its Decision
Before the CA, petitioner filed a Petition for Review, contesting the jurisdiction of the CIAC and
assailing the propriety of the monetary awards in favor of respondent spouses.

Issue:
Whether or not the CIAC could take jurisdiction over the case of Respondent Cid spouses against
Petitioner Philrock after the case had been dismissed by both the RTC and the CIAC.

Held:

Yes. The CIAC could take jurisdiction over the case of Respondent Cid spouses against Petitioner
Philrock after the case had been dismissed by both the RTC and the CIAC.
Section 4 of Executive Order 1008 expressly vests in the CIAC original and exclusive jurisdiction over
disputes arising from or connected with construction contracts entered into by parties that have
agreed to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration. 8
In the case at bar, the parties submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Commission by virtue
of their Agreement to Arbitrate dated November 24, 1993. Signatories to the Agreement were Atty.
Ismael J. Andres and Perry Y. Uy (president of Philippine Rock Products, Inc.) for petitioner, and Nelia
G. Cid and Atty. Esteban A. Bautista for respondent spouses. 9

Therefore, submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the Commission, the CIAC could take
jurisdiction over the case of Respondent Cid spouses against Petitioner Philrock after the case had
been dismissed by both the RTC and the CIA .