Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

B. ABSCBN Broadcasting Corp. vs World Interactive Network Systems (WINS) Japan Co. Ltd.

544 SCRA 308
G.R. No. 169332 February 11, 2008
a. Facts,
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 granting WINS the exclusive license to distribute and sublicense the distribution of
the television service known as "The Filipino Channel" (TFC) in Japan.
A dispute arose between the parties when ABS-CBN claimed that WINS made “unauthorized
insertions" of episodes constituting a material breach of their agreement.
ABS-CBN notified WINS of its intention to terminate the agreement.
WINS filed an arbitration suit and contend that the insertions were made with prior approval.
Professor Alfredo F. Tadiar, the sole arbitrator,ruled in favor of WINS and held that ABS-CBN
gave its approval to respondent for the airing of WINS WEEKLY as shown by a series of written
exchanges between the parties. The arbitrator found that ABS-CBN threatened to terminate the
agreement due to its desire to compel respondent to re-negotiate the terms thereof for higher fees.
b. Issue/s,
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 to overturn an arbitral award.
c. Ruling of the RTC,
WINS filed a petition for confirmation of arbitral award before the RTC. RTC issued an order
holding in abeyance any further action on respondent's petition as the assailed decision of the
arbitrator had already become the subject of an appeal in the CA
d. Ruling of the CA,
CA dismissed ABS-CBN’s petition for lack of jurisdiction and stated that the arbitrator's
decision shall be final and unappealable and that no motion for reconsideration shall be filed,
then the petition for review must fail. 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. Hence, this petition.
e. Final Ruling of the SC
NO. As Section 24 of RA 876 did not expressly provide for errors of fact and/or law and grave
abuse of discretion (proper grounds for a petition for review under Rule 43 and a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65, respectively) as grounds for maintaining a petition to vacate an arbitral
award in the RTC, it necessarily follows that a party may not avail of the latter remedy on the
grounds of errors of fact and/or law or grave abuse of discretion to overturn an arbitral award.
A petition to vacate filed in the RTC which is not based on the grounds enumerated in Section 24
of RA 876 should be dismissed.
ABS-CBN’s petition entitled "alternative petition for review under Rule 43 or petition for
certiorari under Rule 65," was wrong. Time and again, we have ruled that the remedies of appeal
and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.
An appeal taken either to this Court or the CA by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be