ALTERNATIVE

DISPUTE RESOLUTION has the effect of rendering the judgment sought to be

appealed final and executory.
1. GMCC UNITED V. GOTESCO REGENCY TWIN TOWERS CONDO
• SPAC was not a party to the original action. It could not
CORP
have appealed the order of the Arbiter to the NLRC.
• Sec. 18 of the RPSCC – Failure of the plaintiff to appear
Respondent has no appeal nor any plain, speedy and
shall be cause for the dismissal of the claim without
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, a
prejuedice.
petition for certiorari is the best available remedy to
• Failure of the defendant to appear shall have the protect its rights.
SAME EFFECT as failure to file a Response under Sec.
• The availability of the ordinary course of appeal does
12.
not constitute sufficient ground to prevent a party from
• No injunctive relief was issued for the benefit of GMCC ,
making use of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari
execution followed as a matter of course. Execution
where appeal is not an adequate remedy or equally
puts an end to litigation; it is where justice is served to
beneficial, speedy and sufficient.
the prevailing party.
• It is the inadequacy – not the mere absence – of all

other legal remedies and the danger of failure of
2. A.L. ANG NETWORK INC V. EMMA MONDEJAR
justice without the writ that usually determines the
• Sec. 23 of the RPSCC – The decision shall be final and
propriety of certiorari.
appealable.

• The extraordinary writ of certiorari is always available
4. CHUNG FU INDUSTRIES V. CA
when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and
• HISTORY:
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
o Arbitration – CA No. 103 (1936) – provided
• A petition for certiorari, unlike an appeal, is an original
for compulsory arbitration as the state
action designed to correct only errors of jurisdiction.
opolicy to be administered by the CIR, in
• Considering that small claims cases are exclusively
time of such a modality gave way to
within the jurisdiction of the MTC,MeTC, MCTC, MTCC,
voluntary arbitration.
a certiorari petition assailing dispositions should be
o Industrial Peace Act – RA No. 875 (1953) –
filed before the corresponding RTC.
favored the policy of free collective

bargaining, and resort to grievance
3. KENJI OKADA V. SECURITY PACIFIC ASSURANCE CORP.
procedure, as the preferred mode of
• An appeal bond timely filed is indispensable to the settling disputes.
perfection of an appeal in a labor case. A cash or surety o Labor Code – PD 442 (1974) – for business
bond is a requirement sine qua non for the perfection or EE-ER , arbitration was gaining wide
of an appeal from the LA’s monetary award. acceptance.
• The perfection of an appeal within the period and in the o Arbitration Law – RA NO. 876 (1953) –
manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional and non- adopted to supplement, not to supplant,
compliance with the requirements therefore is fatal and the NCC on arbitration.
o CIAC- EO No. 1008 (Feb. 4, 1985)
JTVS | 3S | CIVPRO & ADR 1
 Agreement to arbitrate may be stipulated.
o •The matter of ascertaining the duties and obligations of
Such recourse to an extrajudicial means of the parties under their contract all involve
settlement is not intended to completely interpretation of the provisions of the contract.
deprive the court of jurisdiction. • An arbitration clause in a construction contract or a
• Art. 2044 – NCC : Any stipulation that the submission to arbitration of a construction dispute shall
arbitrators’ award or decision shall be final is valid, be deemed an agreement to submit an existing or
without prejudice to Articles 2038,2039 and 2040. future controversy to CIAC jurisdiction, notwithstanding
o The arbitrators’ award is not absolute and the reference to a different arbitration institution or
without exceptions. arbitral body in such contract or submission.
o Awards may still be rescinded. • The bare fact that the parties herein incorporated an
• Although parties agree that the decision of the arbitration clause in the EPCC is sufficient to vest the
arbitrator shall be final and unappealable, the CIAC with jurisdiction over any construction controversy
subject arbitration award not beyond the ambit of claim between the parties.
the court’s power of judicial review. • The arbitration clause IPSO FACTO vested the CIAC
• After an award, the proper remedy is certiorari with jurisdiction. This rule applies regardless of
under Rule 65. This will lie only where a grave whether the parties specifically choose another forum
abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of or make reference to another arbitral body. Since the
jurisdiction on the part of the voluntary arbitrator is jurisdiction of CIAC is conferred by law, it cannot be
clearly shown. subjected to any condition.
• Mere existence of an arbitration clause in the
5. WILLIAM GOLANGCO CONSTRUCTION CORP V. RAY BURTON construction contract is considered by law as an
DEV’T CORP. agreement by the parties to submit existing or future
• Failure to comply with the requirement that the controversies between them to CIAC jurisdiction,
petition be accompanied by a duplicate original or without any qualification or condition precedent.
certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution or
ruling being challenged is sufficient ground for the 6. KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. V. ALBERTO A. LERMA
dismissal of the said petition. • While the RTC does not have jurisdiction over disputes
• Sec. 4 of EO NO. 1008 – the CIAC has EOJ over disputes governed by arbitration mutually agreed upon by the
arising from, or connected with contracts entered into parties, still the foreign arbitral award is subject to
by parties involved in construction in the Philippines judicial review by the RTC which can set aside, reject, or
and all that is needed for the CIAC to acquire vacate it.
jurisdiction is for the parties to agree to submit the • An arbitration clause, stipulation that the arbitral award
same to voluntary arbitration. is final and binding, does not oust our courts of
• Contract provides that matters not otherwise provided jurisdiction as the international arbitral award is still
shall be governed by the CIAC. judicially reviewable under certain conditions provided
for by the UNCITRAL.

JTVS | 3S | CIVPRO & ADR 2

 • RA No. 9285 incorporated UNCITRAL Model law tow 7. MCC INDUSTRIAL SALES CORP V. SSANGYONG CORP.
hich we are a signatory. • For evidentiary purposes, an electronic document shall be
• In case a foreign arbitral body is chosen by the parties, the functional equivalent of a written document under
the arbitration rules of our domestic arbitration obides existing laws.
would not be applied. • The Rules on Electronic Evidence regards an electronic
• While RA NO. 9285 was passed only in 2004, it document as admissible if it compies with the rules on
nonetheless applies in the instant case since it is a admissibility prescribed by the RoC and related laws, and is
procedural law which has a retroactive effect. authenticated in the manner prescribed by said rules.
• Procedural laws are construed to be applicable to • An electronic document is also the equivalent of an original
actions pending and undetermined at the time of their document under the Best Evidence rule, if it is a printout or
passage, and are deemed retroactive in that sense and output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect
to that extent. As a general rule, it does not violate any the data accurately.
personal rights because no vested right has yet • To be admissible in evidence, the writing must foremost be
attached nor arisen from them. an electronic data message or an electronic document.
• RTC must refer to arbitration in proper cases. Under • IRR of RA NO. 8792: Electronic Data Message refers to
Sec. 24, the RTC does not have jurisdiction over information generated, sent, received or stored by
disputes that are properly the subject of arbitration electronic, optical or similar means, but not limited to,
pursuant to an arbitration clause. electronic data interchange, electronic mail, telegram, telex,
• Foreign arbitral awards must be confirmed by the RTC. or telecopy.
• The RTC has jurisdiction to review foreign arbitral o Copied from UNCITRAL
awards. The RTC may set aside, reject, or vacate it. o While this phrase was deleted in the E-Commerce
• While foreign arbitral awards are final and binding, it Act of 2000, it was reiterated in the IRR. The
does not oust courts of jurisdiction since these arbitral deletion by Congress of the phrase is significant and
awards are not absolute and without exceptions as they pivotal.
are still judicially reviewable. • Electronic Record: means data that is recorded or stored on
• An arbitration clause, stipulating that the arbitral any medium in or by a computer system or other similar
award is final and binding, does not oust our courts of device, that can be read or perceived by a person or a
jurisdiction as the int’l arbitral award, the award of computer system or other similar device.
which is not absolute and without exceptions, is still • It would not apply to telexes or faxes, except computer-
judicially reviewable under certain conditions. (must generated faxes, unlike in UNCITRAL. (Senator Sanitago)
be confirmed). • Electronic record fixes the scope of the Act. The record is
• RTC has interim jurisdiction to protect the rights of the the data. It may be any medium.Not all data recorded or
parties. stored in “digital” form is covered. A computer or similar
devices has to be involved in creation or storage.
• A facsimile machine is a device that can send or receive
pictures and text over a telephone line. It works by
digitizing an image – dividing it into a grid of dots. It is
JTVS | 3S | CIVPRO & ADR 3
 essentially an image scanner, a modem, and a computer • A submission to arbitration is a contract. A clause in a
printer combined into a highly specialized package. contract providing that all matters in dispute between
• A facsimile transmission is not an electronic data message the parties shall be referred to arbitration is a contract.
or an electronic document and cannot be considered as • This special proceeding is the procedural mechanism for
electronic evidence by the Court, with greater reason is a the enforcement of the contract to arbitrate.
photocopy of such fax transmission not electronic • Court’s Authority: to determine whether or not there is
evidence. an agreement in writing providing for arbitration.
• The doctrine of separability/severability enunciates
8. DFA V. BCA INTERNATIONAL CORP. that an arbitration agreement is independent of the
• Arbitration is deemed a special proceeding and governed by main contract. It is to be treated as a separate
the provisions of RA 9285, its IRR, and the Special ADR Rules. agreement and the arbitration agreement does not
RA 9285 is the general law applicable to all matters and automatically terminate when the contract of which it
controversies to be resolved through ADR. It applies to is part comes to an end. The separability of the
pending arbitration proceedings because it may be applied arbitration agreement is especially significant to the
retroactively, provided there are no vested rights. determination of whether the invalidity of the main
• Any party to an arbitration, whether domestic or foreign, contract also nullifies the arbitration clause. IT
may request the court to provide assistance in taking denotes that the invalidity of the main contract, also
evidence such as the issuance of subpoenas. referred to as the container contract, does not affect
• The Arbitration Law empowered arbitrators to subpoena the validity of the arbitration agreement. Irrespective
witnesses and documents when the materiality of the the of the fact that the main contract is invalid, the
testimony has been demonstrated to them. arbitration clause/agreement still remains valid and
• A proceeding in the arbitral tribunal does not prevent the enforceable.
possibility of the purpose of the privilege being defeated, if it • The validity of the contract containing the agreement to
is not allowed to be invoked. submit to arbitration does not affect the applicability of
the arbitration clause itself.
9. GONZALES V. CLIMAX MINING LTD.
• RA No. 876, Sec. 29: the term “may” refers to the filing 10. TRANSFIELD PHILIPPINES INC. V. LUZON HYDRO CORP.
of an appeal, not to the mode of review to be employed • The pendency of arbitral proceedings does not
– the use of “may” merely reiterates the principle that foreclose resort to the courts for provisional reliefs.
the right to appeal is not part of due process of law but Rules of the ICC, which governs the parties’ arbitral
is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in the dispute, allows the application of a party to a judicial
manner and in accordance with the law. authority for interim or conservatory measures.
• Disputes do not go to arbitration unless and until the • RA No. 876: recognizes the rights of any party to
parties have agreed to abide by the arbitrator’s decision petition the court to take measures to safeguard and/or
– necessarily, a contract is required for arbitration to conserve any matter which is the subject of the dispute
take place and to be binding. in arbitration.

JTVS | 3S | CIVPRO & ADR 4

 • Art. 35- UNCITRAL – An arbitral award, irrespective of • Evident partiality in its common definition implies the
the country in which it was made, shall be recognized as existence of signs and indications that must lead to an
binding and, upon application in writing to the idenetification or inference.
competent court, shall be enforced subject to the • Arbitrators must disclose to the parties any dealings
provisions of this article and of Art. 36. that might create an impression of possible bias, and
that underlying such standard is the premise that any
11. RCBC V. BDO tribunal permitted by law to try cases and controversies
• A review brought to the SC under the Special ADR Rules not only must be unbiased but also must avoid even the
is not a matter of right. It is of sound judicial discretion, appearance of bias.
which will be granted only for serious and compelling • An arbitrator’s conduct should be beyond reproach
reasons resulting in grave prejudice to the aggrieved and suspicion. His acts should be free from the
party (Rule 19.36). appearances of impropriety. The Court adopts the
• The applicable standard for judicial review of arbitral reasonable impression of partiality standard, which
awards is in Rule 19.10 – The Court can only vacate or requires a showing that a reasonable person would
set aside the decision of an arbitral award upon clear have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to the
showing that the award suffers from any of the other party to the arbitration. Such interest or bias
infirmities or grounds for vacating an arbitral award. must be direct, definite, and capable of demonstration
• As a rules, the award of an arbitrator cannot be set rather than remote, uncertain or speculative.
aside for mere errors of judgment either as to the law • When Chairman Barker furnished them a copy of the
or as to the facts. article, he armed RCBC with supporting legal arguments
• ADR methods are highly encouraged by the SC. By under the contractual approach discussed by Secomb.
enabling parties to resolve their disputes amicably, they
provide solutions that are less time-consuming, less 12. UMBAO V. YAP
tedious, less confrontational and more productive of • RA No. 876 was adopted to supplement, not to
goodwill and lasting relationship. supplant, the NCC on arbitration.
• Evident partiality is not defined in our arbitration laws. • Under the NCC, the parties may select the arbitrator
In the US, it encompasses both an arbitrator’s explicit without court intervention. Under Sec. 8 of RA No. 876,
bias toward one party an arbitrator’s inferred bias when the Act impliedly permits them to do so.
an arbitrator fails to disclose relevant information to • There is nothing in RA No. 876 requiring court
the parties. permission or knowledge or intervention before the
• Partiality – the inclination to favor one side; Inclination arbitrator selected by the parties may perform his
– a particular disposition of mind or character, assigned work.
propensity, bent, or a tendency to a particular aspect,
state, character, or action; evident – capable of being 13. CONTINENTAL MARBLE CORP V. NLRC
perceived by sight. • Findings of fact of a voluntary arbitrator, not
supported by evidence or by the law are subject to
review by the SC.
JTVS | 3S | CIVPRO & ADR 5
 • Decisions of voluntary arbitrators must be given highest themselves to a process of dispute resolution that avoids
respect and as a general rule, must be accorded a extended litigation.
certain measure of finality. • Arbitration agreements are liberally construed in favor of
• A voluntary arbitrator by the nature of her functions proceeding to arbitration. We adopt the interpretation that
acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. would render effective an arbitration clause if the terms of
the agreement allow for such interpretation.
14. MALAYAN INSURANCE CO. INC V. ST. FRANCIS SQUARE CORP • There is no rule that a contract should be contained in a
• GR: Factual findings of construction arbitrators are single document. A whole contract may be contained in
final and conclusive and not reviewable by the SC on several documents that are consistent with one another.
appeal. • Assignment involves the transfer of rights after the
• Exceptions to the GR: perfection of a contract. Nomination pertains to the act of
1. The award was procured by corruption, fraud or naming the party with whom it has a relationship of trust or
other undue means agency.
2. There was evident partiality or corruption of the • The three documents should be read together as they
arbitrators were curated towards the same goal. DMCI-PDPI as the
3. Arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to nominee has the right to invoke the arbitration clause.
hear evidence pertinent and material to the
controversy. 16. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP v. WORLD INTERACTIVE
4. One or more of the arbitrators were disqualified NETWORKS SYSTEM
5. The arbitrators exceeded their powers or so • RA 876 itself mandates that it is the RTC which has
imperfectly executed that no award was made jurisdiction over questions relating to arbitration, such
6. There is a very clear showing of grave abuse of as a petition to vacate an arbitral award.
discretion • A voluntary arbitrator is properly classified as a “Quasi-
7. When the findings of the CA are contrary to those judicial instrumentality” and is, thus, within the ambit
of the CIAC of BP 129.
8. When a party is deprived of administrative due • As RA 876 did not expressly provide for errors of fact
process. and/or law and grave abuse of discretion (proper
• Apart from conflicting findings of fact of the CA and the grounds for Rule 43 and Rule 65 respectively) as
CIAC as to the propriety of some arbitral awards, grounds for maintaining a petition to vacate an arbitral
mathematical computations and entitlement to claim award in the RTC, it necessarily follows that a party may
certain costs as part of the amount necessary to complete not vail of the atter remedy.
the project, none of the other exceptions above was shown • The proper remedy from the adverse decision of a
to obtain in this case. voluntary arbitrator, if errors of fact and/or law are
raised, is a petition for review under Rule 43.
15. BASES CONVERSION DEV’T AUTHORITY V. DMCI PROJECT • In cases not falling under any of the aforementioned
• Arbitration is product of the meeting of minds of parties grounds to vacate an award, a petition for review under
submitting a predefined set of disputes. They agree among
JTVS | 3S | CIVPRO & ADR 6
 Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be • On matter of capacity to sue, a foreign arbitral award
availed of in the CA. should be respected not because it is favored over
• Decisions handed down by voluntary arbitrators fall domestic laws and procedures, but because RA 9285
within the EAJ of the CA. ( VA being quasi-judicial) has certainly erased any conflict of law question.
• Any agreement stipulating that “the decision of the
arbitrator shall be final and unappealable” and that 18. INSULAR SAVINGS BANK V. FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO.
“no further judicial recourse if either party disagrees • Philippine Clearing House Corp. (PCHC) has its own
with the whole or any part of the arbitrator’s award Rules of Procedure for Arbitration but also govern by
may be availed of” cannot be held to preclude in RA 876.
proper cases the power of judicial review which is • In the PCHC rules, the findings of facts of the decision or
inherent in courts. award rendered by the Arbitration Committee shall be
final and conclusive upon all the parties in said
17. TUNA PROCESSING INC V. PHILIPPINE KINGFORD INC. arbitration dispute.
• Sec. 133 of the Corporation Code: No foreign • Under Art. 2044 of the NCC, the validity of any
corporation transacting business in the PH without a stipulation on the finality of the arbitrators’ award or
license shall be permitted to maintain or intervene in decision is recognized. The decision of the Arbitration
any action, suit or proceeding. Xxx Committee is subject to judicial review.
• Reconciling Corporation Code and ADR Act: The • Petitioner and respondent have agreed that the PCHC
Corporation is a general law while the ADR act is a rules would govern in case of controversy. Since the
special law. As between a general and special law, the PCHC Rules came about only as a result of an
latter shall prevail – generalia specialibus non agreement between and among member banks of
derogant. The ADR act was especially enacted to PCHC and not by law, it cannot confer jurisdiction to the
actively promote party autonomy in the resolution of RTC. The rule granting jurisdiction to the RTC to review
the disputes or the freedom of the party to make their arbitral awards, only on questions of law, cannot be
own arrangements to resolve their disputes. given effect.
• A foreign corporation not licensed to do business in • Remedies of an Aggrieved Party: 1) Petition the RTC to
the Philippines have LEGAL CAPACITY to sue under the issue an order vacating the award on the grounds under
provisions of the ADR Act. Sec. 24 of the Arbitration Law; 2) Petition for Review
• Rule 13.1 of Special ADR Rules: any party to a foreign under Rule 34 of the RoC with the CA; or 3) File a
arbitration may petition the court to recognize and petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
enforce a foreign arbitral award. Capacity to sue is not
included. 19. STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO. INC. V. SPS. STROEM
• It is in the best interest of justice that in the • Sec. 4 of EO 1008: The CIAC shall have original and
enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, we deny exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from, or
availment by losing party of the rule that bars foreign connected with, contracts entered into by parties
corporations not licensed to do business in the PH from involved in construction in the PH.
maintaining a suit in our courts.
JTVS | 3S | CIVPRO & ADR 7
 • The jurisdiction of the CIAC may include but is not • The CIAC was created to establish an arbitral machinery
limited to: that would expeditiously settle construction industry
o Violation of specifications for materials and disputes. The prompt resolution of problems arising
workmanship from or connected with construction industry was
o Violation of the terms of agreement necessary and vital.
o Interpretation and/or application of contractual • Where a surety in a construction contract actively
time and delays participates in a collection suit, it is estopped from
o Maintenance and defects raising jurisdiction later.
o Payment, default of employer or contract and
changes in contract cost. 20. FRUEHAUF ELECTRONICS PH CORP V. TECHNOLOGY
• Two ways to vest jurisdiction in the CIAC: 1) Presence of ELECTRONICS ASSEMBLY
an arbitration clause in a construction contract; and 2) • Arbitration is an alternative mode of dispute resolution
agreement by the parties to submit the dispute to the outside of the regular court system. It is a voluntary
CIAC. process in which one or more arbitrators – appointed
• The CIAC has exclusive and original jurisdiction. according to the parties’ agreement or according to the
Construction has been defined as referring to “all on- rules of ADR – resolve a dispute rendering an award.
site works on buildings or altering structures, from land • It requires consent from both parties. This contractual
clearance through completion including excavation, and consensual character means that the parties
erection and assembly and installation of components cannot implead a third-party in the proceedings even if
and equipment. the latter’s participation is necessary for a complete
• Performance bond – meant to guarantee the supply of settlement of the dispute.
labor, materials, tools, equipment and necessary • The tribunal does not have the power to compel a
supervision to complete the project; It is significantly person to participate in the arbitration proceedings
and substantially connected to the construction without that person’s consent.
connected to the construction contract and therefore • An Arbitral Tribunal does not exercise quasi-judicial
falls under the CIAC jurisdiction. Although not the powers. Quasi-judicial power is granted by statute.
construction contract itself, the performance bond is Arbitral tribunal, being contractual and consensual,
deemed as an associate of the main construction does not have any inherent powers over the parties.
contract that it cannot be separated or severed from its • Compare to ABS-CBN v. WINS an INSULAR BANK v.
principal. FEBTC *check case
• The construction agreement was signed only by • Once the RTC orders the confirmation, vacation or
respondents and contractor. It is basic that contracts correction/modification of a domestic arbitral award,
take effect only between the parties, their assigns and the aggrieved party may move for reconsideration
heirs. Not being a party to the construction within a non-extendible period of 15 days from receipt
agreement, petitioner cannot invoke the arbitration of order.
clause. • ADR Law was enacted in 2004. Special ADR rules took
effect on Oct. 30, 2009. RTC’s disallowed the appeal on
JTVS | 3S | CIVPRO & ADR 8
 Nov. 15, 2009. Special ADR Rules took effect in interim. to an arbitrator, who shall have the authority to render
The Special ADR rules apply retroactively In light of its a resolution binding upon the parties.
procedural character. • Sec. 7 of RA 876: Arbitration shall stay the action or
• Simple errors of fact, of law or both committed by the proceeding until an arbitration has been had in
arbitral tribunal are not justiciable errors in this accordance with the terms of the agreement.
jurisdiction. TEAM agreed to submit their disputes to an • A formal request is not the sole means of invoking an
arbitral tribunal. It understood all the risks – including arbitration clause in a pending suit.
the absence of an appeal mechanism. • The arbitration clause in this case is not at all defeated
by the failure of petitioner to file a formal “request” or
21. KOPPEL , INC. V. MAKATI ROTARY CLUB FOUNDATION INC application therefor with the MeTC.
• The arbitration clause of the 2005 Lease Contract
stipulates that “any disagreement” as to the 22. DENR V. UPCI
“interpretation, application or execution of the 2005 • The ADR Act was without prejudice to the adoption by
Lease Contract ought to be submitted to arbitration. the SC of any ADR system as a means of achieving
Such stipulation is clear and is comprehensive enough speedy and efficient means of resolving cases pending
so as to include virtually any kind of conflict or dispute before all courts in the Philippines.
that may arise form the 2005 Lease Contract. • Special ADR rules do not automatically govern the
• Petitioner may still invoke the arbitration clause arbitration proceedings itself. It is a product of party
notwithstanding the fact that it assails the validity of autonomy or the freedom of the parties to make their
usch contract by virtue of the Doctrine of Separability – own arrangements to resolve their own disputes. By
an arbitration agreement is considered as independent its referral to arbitration, the case fell within the
of the main contract. coverage of the Special ADR rules.
• Rule 4.1 of Special ADR Rules : a party to a pending • Execution is fittingly called the fruit and end of suit and
action filed in violation of the arbitration agreement the life of the law. A judgment, if left unexecuted,
may request xxx. would be nothing but an empty victory for the
• The fact that the parties already went through JDR prevailing party.
proceedings before the RTC will not make the • Special ADR Rules extend not only to aspects of
subsequent conduct of arbitration between the parties confirmation but necessarily extend to a confirmed
unnecessary or circuitous because the JDR system is award’s execution in the light of doctrine of necessary
substantially different from arbitration proceedings. implication.
• JDR – based on the process of mediation, conciliation or
early neutral evaluation which entails the submission of 23. LUZON IRON DEV’T GROUP CORP V. BRIDESTONE MINING
a dispute before a JDR judge who shall merely facilitate AND DEV’T CORP
the settlement. JDR judge lacks authority to render a • TPAA must be construed in such a manner that would
resolution of the dispute that is binding upon the give life to the arbitration clause rather than defeat it, if
parties in conflict. ARBITRATION – dispute is submitted such interpretation is permissible.

JTVS | 3S | CIVPRO & ADR 9

 • The petitioner’s failure to refer the case for arbitration 25. FYFE V. PAL
does not render the arbitration clause in the TPAA • Although the Special ADR Rules provides that the
inoperative. appropriate remedy from an order of the RTC vacating
• Apprising the MeTC of the arbitration clause is enough a domestic arbitral award is an appeal by petition for
valid invocation of his right to arbitrate. review in the CA, not an ordinary appeal under rule 41,
• A formal request is not the sole means of invoking an the Court cannot set aside and reverse the assailed
arbitration clause in a pending suit. decision on that basis because the decision was in full
accord with the law or rule in force at the time of tis
24. FEDEX CORP V. AIRFREIGHT 2100 promulgation.
• Sec. 3h of RA 9285: Confidential Information means • Appeal as a remedy is not a matter of right, but a mere
any information, relative to the subject of mediation or statutory privilege to be exercise only in the manner
arbitration, expressly intended by the source not to be and strictly in accordance with the law.
disclosed or obtained under circumstances that would • SEC’s suspension order deprived the arbitration panel
create a reasonable expectation on behalf of the source of the jurisdiction to hear any claims against
that the information shall not be disclosed. It shall respondent.
include 1) communication, oral or written, made in a o The suspension of proceedings uniformly
dispute resolution proceedings x x x; 3) witness applies to all actions for claims filed against a
statements, reports filed or submitted in an arbitration corporation, partnership or association under
for expert evaluation. management or receivership, without
• Rule 10.1 of Special ADR Rules: a party, counsel or distinction, except only those expenses
witness who disclosed or who was compelled to incurred in the ordinary course of business.
disclose information relative to the subject of the ADR, The law is clear and makes no distinction as to
information shall be kept condfidential. Xxx the claims that are suspended once a
• “Relative to the subject of mediation or arbitration” – management committee is created or a
need not be strictly confined to the discussion of the rehabilitation receiver is appointed.
core issues in the arbitral dispute. o The indiscriminate suspension of actions for
• Relative – means connected to, which means that claims intends to expedite rehabilitation of the
parties in arbitration proceedings are encouraged to distressed corporation by enabling the
discuss openly their grievances and explore the management committee or the rehabilitation
circumstances which might have any connection in receiver to effectively exercise its/his powers
identifying the source of the conflict. free from any judicial or extrajudicial
• The very soul of an arbitration proceeding would be interference that might unduly hinder or
rendered useless if it would be simply used as an prevent the rescue of the debtor company.
avenue for evidence gathering or an entrapment
mechanism to lure the other unsuspecting party into
conveying information that could be potentially used
against him in another forum or in court.
JTVS | 3S | CIVPRO & ADR 10