1.

CHUNGFU VS CA
 Petitioner Chung Fu Industries and private respondent Roblecor Philippines, Inc forged a
construction agreement - to construct and finish petitioner corporation's industrial/factory
complex in Tanawan, Tanza, Cavite for and in consideration of P42,000,000.00.
 In the event of disputes arising from the performance of subject contract, it was stipulated
therein that the issue(s) shall be submitted for resolution before a single arbitrator chosen by
both parties.
 Subsequent negotiations between the parties eventually led to the formulation of an arbitration
agreement which, among others, provides:
 The parties mutually agree that they will abide by the decision of the arbitrator including any
amount that may be awarded to either party as compensation, consequential damage and/or
interest thereon;
 The parties mutually agree that the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and unappealable.
Therefore, there shall be no further judicial recourse if either party disagrees with the whole or
any part of the arbitrator's award.
 It is stated explicitly under Art. 2044 of the Civil Code that the finality of the arbitrators' award is
not absolute and without exceptions. Where the conditions described in Articles 2038, 2039 and
2040 applicable to both compromises and arbitrations are obtaining, the arbitrators' award may
be annulled or rescinded.
 Additionally, under Sections 24 and 25 of the Arbitration Law, there are grounds for vacating,
modifying or rescinding an arbitrator's award. Thus, if and when the factual circumstances
referred to in the above-cited provisions are present, judicial review of the award is properly
warranted.
 What if courts refuse or neglect to inquire into the factual milieu of an arbitrator's award to
determine whether it is in accordance with law or within the scope of his authority? How may
the power of judicial review be invoked? This is where the proper remedy is certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. Even decisions of administrative agencies which are
declared "final" by law are not exempt from judicial review when so warranted.
 It should be stressed, too, that voluntary arbitrators, by the nature of their functions, act in a
quasi-judicial capacity. It stands to reason, therefore, that their decisions should not be beyond
the scope of the power of judicial review of this Court.

2. BF CORPORATION V. CA
 The formal requisites of an agreement to arbitrate are the following: (a) It must be in Writing (b)
It must be subscribed by the parties or their representatives.
 Petitioner’s contention that there was no arbitration clause because the contract incorporating
said provision is part of a hodgepodge document is untenable. A contract, such as an arbitration
agreement, need not be contained in a single writing. It may be collected from several different
writing, which do not conflict with each other and which when connected show the parties,
subject matter, terms and conditions.
3. HI PRECISION STEEL CENTER, INC. vs LIM KIM STEEL BUILDERS, IONC
 Hi-Precision entered into a contract with private respondent Steel Builders to complete a P21
Million construction project owned by the former
 Steel Builders filed a "Request for Adjudication" with public respondent CIAC. In its Complaint
filed with the CIAC, Steel Builders sought payment of its unpaid progress buildings, alleged
unearned profits and other receivables. Hi-Precision, upon the other hand, in its Answer and
Amended Answer, claimed actual and liquidated damages, reimbursement of alleged additional
costs it had incurred in order to complete the project and attorney's fees.
 Petitioner asks this Court to correct legal errors committed by the Arbitral Tribunal, which at the
same time constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of
the Arbitral Tribunal; and Should the supposed errors petitioner asks us to correct be
characterized as errors of fact, such factual errors should nonetheless be reviewed because
there was "grave abuse of discretion" in the misapprehension of facts on the part of the Arbitral
Tribunal.
 Executive Order No. 1008, as amended, provides, in its Section 19, as follows: Sec. 19. Finality of
Awards. — The arbitral award shall be binding upon the parties. It shall be final and inappealable
except on questions of law which shall be appealable to the Supreme Court.
 Section 19 makes it crystal clear that questions of fact cannot be raised in proceedings before
the Supreme Court — which is not a trier of facts — in respect of an arbitral award rendered
under the aegis of the CIAC.
 Examination of the Petition at bar reveals that it is essentially an attempt to re-assert and re-
litigate before this Court the detailed or itemized factual claims made before the Arbitral
Tribunal under a general averment that the Arbitral Tribunal had "misapprehended the facts"
submitted to it. in reaching its factual and legal conclusions.

4. ABS-CBN V. WORLD INTERACTIVE NETWORK SYSTEMS

 R.A. 876 [Arbitration Law], itself mandates that it is the CFI, now the RTC which has jurisdiction
over questions relating to arbitration such as a petition to vacate arbitral award. The RTC has
jurisdiction when the ground to vacate are those enumerated under Sec 24 of R.A. 876. A
petition to vacate filed in the RTC which is not based on the grounds enumerated in Sec 24 of
said law should be dismissed.
 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.
 The remedy petitioner availed of entitled Alternative petition for review under Rule 43 or
Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was wrong because the remedies of appeal and certiorari
are mutually exclusive and not alternative and successive.
5. REAL BANK INC. V. SAMSUNG MABUHAY CORPORATION
 Mediation is part of pre-trial and failure of the plaintiff to appear thereat merits sanction on the
part of the absent party. The Second revised Guidelines for the Implementation of Mediation
Proceedings and Sec 5 rule 18 of ROC grant judges the discretion to dismiss and action for failure
of plaintiff to appear in mediation proceedings.
 The Trial court was erroneously dismissed. The notice of mediation sent to respondent
Samsung’s original counsel was ineffectual as the same was sent at the time when such counsel
had already validly withdrawn its representation. Thus the absence of respondent Samsung
during the scheduled mediation conference was excusable and justified.

6. LM POWER ENGINEERING CORPORATON V. CAPITOL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION GROUP

 There is no more need to file a request with the CIAC in order to vest it with jurisdiction to
decide a construction dispute. The arbitral clause in the agreement is a commitment on the part
of the parties to submit to arbitration the disputes covered therein.
 Because that clause is binding, they are expected to abide by it in good faith. And because it
covers the dispute between the parties in the present case, either of them may compel the
other to arbitrate.
 Since petitioner has already filed a Complaint with the RTC without prior recourse to arbitration,
the proper procedure to enable the CIAC to decide on the disputes to request the stay or
suspension of such action as provided under R.A. 876.

7. RCBC V. MAGWIN MARKETING CORPORATION

 There is nothing in the Rules that imposes the sanction of dismissal for failing to submit a
compromise agreement. Dismissal on the basis thereof amounts no less to gross procedural
infirmity assailable by certiorari. For such submission could at most be directory and could not
result in throwing out the case for failure to effect compromise. While a compromise is
encouraged, failure to consummate one does not warrant any procedural sanction, much less an
authority to jettison a civil complaint.

8. CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER VS. NLRC

 The petitioner’s refusal to negotiate for a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) resulted in a
union-led strike. The Sec. of Labor and Employment rendered a decision directing the
management of the Capitol Medical Center to negotiate a CBA with the Capitol Medical Center
Employees Association-Alliance of Filipino Workers, the certified bargaining agent of the rank-
and-file employees. Instead of filing a motion with the SOLE for the enforcement of the
resolutions of Undersecretary Laguesma as affirmed by this Court, the Union filed a Notice of
Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB)
 A union is mandated to notify the NCMB of an impending dispute in a particular bargaining unit
via a notice of strike. Thereafter, the NCMB, through its conciliator-mediators, shall call the
parties to a conference at the soonest possible time in order to actively assist them in exploring
all possibilities for amicable settlement. In the event of the failure in the conciliation/mediation
proceedings, the parties shall be encouraged to submit their dispute for voluntary arbitration.
However, if the parties refuse, the union may hold a strike vote, and if the requisite number of
votes is obtained, a strike may ensue.
 The purpose of the strike vote is to ensure that the decision to strike broadly rests with the
majority of the union members in general and not with a mere minority, and at the same time,
discourage wildcat strikes, union bossism and even corruption. A strike vote report submitted to
the NCMB at least seven days prior to the intended date of strike ensures that a strike vote was,
indeed, taken. In the event that the report is false, the seven-day period affords the members
an opportunity to take the appropriate remedy before it is too late. The 15 to 30 day cooling off
period is designed to afford the parties the opportunity to amicably resolve the dispute with the
assistance of the NCMB conciliator/mediator, while the seven-day strike ban is intended to give
the DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries the imprimatur of
the majority of the union members. The requirement of giving notice of the conduct of a strike
vote to the NCMB at least 24hours before the meeting for the said purpose

9. RIZALINA POSITOS V. JACOB CHUA

 The failure of respondent to appear personally during the proceedings is equivalent to non-
compliance with R.A. 7160 thus rendering the complaint dismissible Respondents complaint was
dismissed for failure to comply with the conciliation process. Non-compliance affected the
sufficiency of his cause of action and rendered the complaint susceptible, as in fact it resulted to
dismissal on the ground of prematurity.

10. UNIWIDE SALES REALTY AND RESOURCES CORPORATION V. TITAN IKEDEA CONS. and DEVT
CORP
 An arbitration body, the CIAC, can only resolve issues before it by the parties through the Term
of Reference which functions similarly as a pre-trial brief. Thus if Uniwide’s claims for
unliquidated damages was not raised as an issue in the TOR or in any modified or amended
version of it, the CIAC cannot make a ruling on it.
 The Rules of Court cannot be used to contravene the CIAC Rules. Allowing Sec 5 Rule 10 of the
ROC [Ammendment of Complaint] to apply in such case, deprives Titan of due process to
defend her claim after the late submission of the memorandum.[Memorandum was only
passed after the arbitration proceedings]

11. PHIL ROCK INC V. CIAC

 After submitting itself to arbitration proceedings and actively participating therein, petitioner is
estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the CIAC, merely because the latter rendered an
adverse decision.
 Petitioner claims, on the other hand, that this Agreement was withdrawn by respondents on
April 8, 1994, because of the exclusion of the seven engineers of petitioners in the arbitration
case. This withdrawal became the basis for the April 13, 1994 CIAC Order dismissing the
arbitration case and referring the dispute back to the RTC. Consequently, the CIAC was divested
of its jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
 This contention is untenable. First, private respondents removed the obstacle to the
continuation of the arbitration, precisely by withdrawing their objection to the exclusion of the
seven engineers. Second, petitioner continued participating in the arbitration even after the
CIAC Order had been issued. It even concluded and signed the Terms of Reference
 Petitioner maneuvered to avoid the RTCs final resolution of the dispute by arguing that the
regular court also lost jurisdiction after the arbitral tribunals April 13, 1994 Order referring the
case back to the RTC. In so doing, petitioner conceded and estopped itself from further
questioning the jurisdiction of the CIAC.

12. AGAN V. PIATCO

 The court is aware that arbitration proceedings pursuant to Sec 10. 02 of the ARCA have been
filed at the instance of the Respondent PIATCO. We hold that the arbitration step taken by
PIATCO will not oust this court of its jurisdiction over the case at bar.
 Petitioners in the present case who have presented legitimate interest in the resolution of the
controversy are not parties to the PIATCO contracts. Accordingly they cannot be bound by the
Arbitration clause provided for in the ARCA and hence cannot be compelled to submit to
arbitration proceedings.

13. DFA and BSP V. FALCON

 ICAO required its member states to issue machine readable passports
 BCA won the bidding and was awarded the project to provide the machine readable travel
documents
 BOTH DFA and BCA impute breach of Amended BOT Agreement against each other
 DFA: BCA submitted deficient documents which caused delays
 BCA: DFA failed to timely issue Certificate of Acceptance for Phase 1 of the project


14. TRANSFIELD V. LUZON HYDRO ELECTRIC CORPORATION.

 The applicability of the New York Convention in the Philippines was confirmed in Section 42 of
R.A. 9285. Said law also provides that the application for the recognition and enforcement of
such awards shall be filed with the proper RTC. While TPI's resort to the RTC for recognition and
enforcement of the Third Partial Award is sanctioned by both the New York Convention and R.A.
9285, its application for enforcement, however, was premature, to say the least. True, the ICC
Arbitral Tribunal had indeed ruled that LHC wrongfully drew upon the securities, yet there is no
order for the payment or return of the proceeds of the said securities. The declarations made in
the Third Partial Award do not constitute orders for the payment of money.
 Anent the claim of TPI that it was LHC which committed forum-shopping, suffice it to say that its
bare allegations are not sufficient to sustain the charge.

15. KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO LTD., JUDGE LERMA and PACIFIC GENERAL STEEL MANUFACTURING
CORP
 Parties entered whereby petitioner undertake the supply and installation of LPG Cylinder Mfg
 Initial operation cannot be conducted due to Respondents financial difficulties
 Also PGSMC cancelled the contract due to altered quantity and lowered quality of the equip
 Kogies – instituted an application for arbitration in Korea . Contract has arbitration clause ----
“…..final determination of parties legal rights – not against public policy
 The contract in this case was perfected here in the Philippines. Therefore, our laws ought to
govern. Nonetheless, Art. 2044 of the Civil Code sanctions the validity of mutually agreed
arbitral clause or the finality and binding effect of an arbitral award. Art. 2044 provides, Any
stipulation that the arbitrators award or decision shall be final, is valid, without prejudice to
Articles 2038, 2039 and 2040.
 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

16. KOPPEL INC. VS MAKATI ROTARY CLUB

 FKI donated land to Respondent
 Conditions of Donation
- Any increase in the FMV shall not increase 25% of the original value
- The rental for the second 25 yrs shall not exceed 3% of FMV

 KFI assigned all its rights and properties to Petitioner KOPPEL INC
 RTC – Order petitioner to vacate and pay rentals
 CA – Affirmed
 Even if the validity of the 2005 lease contract (5yr new lease, 4.2M plus yearly money donation)
for which the arbitration clause originated from is under dispute, the arbitration clause can still
be invoked under the Doctrine of Separability.
 [Arbitration agreement is independent of the main contact even if it contained in Arbitration
clause.]
 Filing of a request pursuant to Section 24 of R.A. 9285 is not the sole means by which an arbitral
clause may be validly invoked. When the petitioner invoked the right to arbitrate in their
answer, they effectively invoked the right to arbitrate.
 Failure to settle Judicial Dispute Resolution proceedings gives rise to more cause to submit the
same case to arbitration.

17. J PLUS ASIA DEVT. CORP vs UTILLITY ASSURANCE CORP

 Construction contract of 72 rooms at FAIRWAYS and BLUE WATERS GOLDF in BORACAY by
petitioner and Martin Mabuhay
 Respondent _ A surety Company
 Mabuhay terminated contract --- substantial delay
 CIA Decision – order Mabuhay to pay the petitioner
 Surety is liable ---- it secures the obligation not he downpayment

18. GONZALES V. CLIMAX MINING

 Parties entered into agreements: Petitioner as owner of patented claim of mineral deposits)
right to explore….
 Petitioner seeks to nullify all contracts on the ground of fraud, oppression and violation of Art XII
of the Constitution
 Arbitration before the Panel of Arbitrators is proper only when there is a disagreement between
the parties as to some provisions of the contract between them, which needs the interpretation
and the application of that particular knowledge and expertise possessed by members of that
Panel.
 It is not proper when one of the parties repudiates the existence or validity of such contract or
agreement on the ground of fraud or oppression as in this case. The validity of the contract
cannot be subject of arbitration proceedings. Allegations of fraud and duress in the execution of
a contract are matters within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of law. These questions are
legal in nature and require the application and interpretation of laws and jurisprudence which is
necessarily a judicial function.

19. HUTAMA – RSEA vs CITRA

 Sub construction Agreement (Engineering Procurement Construction Contract (EPCC) for the
Metro Manila Skyway Project
 There was nonpayment of interim billings, final billing, completion bonus plus interest for delay
 Petitioner filed request for arbitration with CIAC
 Respondent – CIAC has no jurisdiction --- EPCC COnntract refer the dispute to DISPUTE
ADJUDICATION BOARD
 E0 1008 – CIAC Acquires jurisdiction either by the presence of the arbitration clause and
submission by the parties to arbitration
 NOTWITSTANDING REFERAL TO A DIFFERENT BODY, shall be deemed an agreement to submit
controversy to CIAC

20. CARGILL PHILIPPINES vs SAN FERNANDO REGALA TRADING, INC

 Contract for Purchases of Molasses

 Respondent – Filed rescission of contract plus damages

 Petitoner filed Motion to dismiss and request the referral of the case to voluntary arbitration

 Contract never existed because respondent did not return the agreement bearing its signature

 Contract contained arbitration clause “Dispute between the buyer and the seller…. Arbitration
award be final and binding on both parties” --- Respondent contends that this is contrary to
public policy because it oust the court of its jurisdiction

21. ELPIDIO UY vs. PUBLIC ESTATE AUTHORITY

 Landscaping sub construction agreement under PEA’s contract with Bases Conversion Dev’t
Authority for the development of Heritage Park Project
 There was a delay in the turn-over of work area (delay in MDC;s horizontal works) hence
additional cost were incurred for the equipment’s and man power made on standby and the
necessity of constructing nursery and mobilization of water trucks
 CIA – award in favor of Petitioner
 Petitioner files motion for re-computation
 Appeals from judgment of the CIAC shall be taken to the CA by filing a petition for review within
fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice of award, judgment, final order or resolution, or
from the date of its last publication if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the
denial of petitioners motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the
governing law of the court or agency a quo. When Uy filed his petition for review with the CA,
the period to appeal had not yet lapsed; it was interrupt
DOCTRINE OF SEPARABILITY – ARBITRTATION AGREEMENT IS INDEPENDED OF MAIN CONTRACT – It is a
separate contract and it does not automatically terminate when contract of which it is a part comes to
an end.

Note: Climax-Arimco sought to enforce the arbitration clause of its contract with Gonzales and the
former's move was premised on the existence of a valid contract; while Gonzales, who resisted the
move of Climax-Arimco for arbitration, did not deny the existence of the contract but merely assailed
the validity thereof on the ground of fraud and oppression. Respondent claims that in the case before
Us, petitioner who is the party insistent on arbitration also claimed in their Motion to Dismiss/Suspend
Proceedings that the contract sought By respondent to be rescinded did not exist or was not
consummated; thus, there is no room for the application of the separability doctrine

Note; RTC may suspend proceedings whether or not that arbitration be conducted in the Philippines

22. SHINRYO PHIL INC., vs RNN Inc

 Parties both domestic corporation entered into a Subcontraction Agreement
 Referral to CIAC --- RNNI recovery of unpaid accounts.
 CIAC AWARD – Ordered shinryo to pay RNNI
 CA and SC – affirmed CIAC award
 Petitioner seek the court to calibrate the evidence it has presented before the CIAC
 FINDINGS OF FACTS OF QUASI- JUDICIAL BODIES which have acquired expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined with specific matters, ARE GENERALLY ACCORDED NOT ONLY RESPECT
BUT ALSO WITH FINALITY ESPECIALY WHEN AFFIRMED BY THE CA

23. HEUNGHWA INDUSTRIES CO. LTD vs DJ BUILDERS CORP.

 Subcontract Agreement under the Main Contract obtained by Petitioner with DPWH for the
construction of Roxas-Lanongan Pd. Palawan project
 Subcontract Price not fully paid
 Heunghwa claimed that he is not entitled to pay, and filed a counterclaim for the completion of
the abandoned works
 FIRST: Complaint for Brach of Contract
 SECOND – Withdrew case in RTC and referral to CIAC
 THIRD – Withdrawal of the Case to CIAC and referral of the case back to RTC --- HEUNGHWA
claimed that it never authorize its lawyer to refer the case to CIAC/arbitration
 CIAC is not divested with jurisdiction to hear the case. THE construction contained provision to
submit any dispute to arbitration and authorization to counsel to submit case for arbitration is
not required.
 24. TUNA PROCESSING INC vs PHIL KINGFORD INC.
 Licensor grants a license to 5 Phil tuna Processors who formed the TUNA PROCESSING INC ---- a
foreign Corporation not licenses to do business in the PHIL --- constituted only pursuant to the
MOA
 Kingford withdrew from TPI, Licensor won the case in the International Arbitration in California
USA
 TPI filed petition to enforced Foreign Arbitral Award against Kingford but was denied for lack of
legal capacity to Sue in the Philippines

SPECIAL RULES ON ADR - Any party to a foreign arbitral award may petition the court to recognize
and enforce a foreign arbitral award:

 Address of parties
 Country where the arb award was made
 Relief sought
 Authenticated arbitration agreement
 Authenticated Arbitration Award

 RA 9285 ADR Law has certainly resolves any conflict of laws because it already incorporated
the
 NEW YORK CONVETION --- Section 42
 MODEL LAW – Section 19

25. F.F. CRUZ and CONSTRUCTION COM vs HR CONSTRUCTION CORP

 SUBCONTRATION AGREEMENT under the MAIN Contract of the Petitioner with DPWH for
Magsaysay via Duct- Lower Agusan Dev’t Project
 CONDITONS OF PAYMENT – JOINT MEASURE/QUANTIFICATION in order to arrive at common
quantity
 Several Progress Billings were sent – first progress billings were paid without the required joint
quantification constitute waiver on the part of the petitioner
 No valid rescission by the private respondent because there is EXTRAJUDICIAL waiver of such
pursuant to the contract – despite any dispute or controversy, respondent must continue with
the performance of its Obligation
 ARBITRATION COST shall be shared equally.

26. ESTATE OF NELSON DULAY vs ABOITIZ JEBSEN MARITIME INC and GENERAL CHARTERERS, INC
 SEAMAN – BOSUN died due to ACUTE RENAL FAILURE secondary to SEPTICEMIA --- died after
completion of his employment contract but during his death a bonafide member of the Union
  LA and NLRC assumed jurisdiction and ruled on the matter
 CA- refer case to NATIONAL CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION BOARD (note: BASTA UNDER CBA --
- covered by Arbitration)
 CASE involves - WHERE SPECIAL STATUTE (RA 8042) refers to a subject in general, which the
GENERAL STATUTE (Art 217 (c) and Art 261 of the LABOR CODE treats in particular.

27. AGBAYANI VS CA.

 COMPLAINT FOR GRAVE ORAL DEFAMATION
 On appeal to DOJ – found that subj utterances only constitute slight oral defamation but
nonetheless dismissed the case for failure to comply with the Brgy. Conciliation
 MANDATORY BGRY CONCILIATION
 Both parties live in the same bgry and the same workplace
 COMPLAINT is PREMATURE
 Case not one of the exception
 No allegation of prior availment of conciliation process
 No certification that no conciliation had been reached by the parties

28. METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT VS MACTAN ROCK INDUSTIRES, INC.

 Water Supply contract – supply of potable water and the reformation of contract to include
Recovery Cost in the Price escalation Formula
 CIAC – ordered reformation of contract
 CIA has Jurisdiction – Docs/ Main Contract including its specifications – undertaking
contemplated by the parties is one if infrastructure of works rather than on of supply or services
 Section 4, E.O No. 1008 0f the Construction Industry Arbitration Law - broad enough to cover
any dispute whether there involves merely CONTRACTUAL MONEY CLAIM or EXECUTION OF
WORKS

ITS JURISDICTION CANNOT BE ALTERED BY

 Stipulations
 Restriction the nature of the construction dispute
 Appointing another arbitral body
 Making that arbitral body’s award final and binding

NOTE: If purely supply of services where no construction is involved, CIAC has no jurisdiction

29. RCBC vs BDO

 Re: Sales Purchase Agreement beyween RCBC and EPCI Bank, Ind SH of Bankard Inc
 RCBC Commenced Arbitration – ICC-ICA
 Payment of Advance Cost
 1st, 2nd, 3rd partial award in favour of RCBC
 Chairman’s act of furnishing Secomb Article indicative of its impartiality in deciding the case
 Despite Referral to ICC-=ICA, TOR contains agreement on the governing law - Tribunal to
determine issues in accordance with Phil Law, both parties are domestic
 Parties are stilled allowed to avail interim measures ie. WPI/TRO during the pendency of Arbitral
Award --- However, BDO payment for the full satisfaction of award despite protest justifies non
–issuance of the WPI/TRO
 Evident Partiality – Ground to VACATE and ARBITRAL AWARD

30. FRUEHAUF ELECTRONIC PHILS CORP VS TECHNOLOGY ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLY AND

MANAGEMENT PACIFIC COURT
 Lease contact – presence of sublease
 Sublease continued despite termination of the Principal Lease Contract
 Arbitral Award – in favour of PEP-C awarding payment of unpaid rent
 RTC – confirm award, Respondent filed notice to appeal
 CA - Initially dismissed
 On MR, reverse/set aside arbitral award
 Team turned over the property properly because new arrangement of the sublease operates as
a resumption of lessor’s possession
 Team not liable for Repairs and Improvement because they were the owner
 SC- even assuming that tribunal was incorrect, this would have been simple errors of law, --
TRIBUNAL not the RTC or CA have the authority over the dispute
 TO RULE OTHERWISE, it erodes obligatory force of arbitration agreements. This will weaken ADR
mechanism, by allowing the court to rule otherwise whenever they disagree with the arbitral
award